i

[H.A.S.C. No. 1126]

HEARING
ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED

PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

ON

BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 16, 2011

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

64862

WASHINGTON

2011

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 2025121800, or 8665121800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
HOWARD P. BUCK MCKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director
JENNESS SIMLER, Professional Staff Member
MICHAEL CASEY, Professional Staff Member
MEGAN HOWARD, Staff Assistant

(II)

CONTENTS
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2011
Page

HEARING:
Wednesday, February 16, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of Defense .....................................
APPENDIX:
Wednesday, February 16, 2011 ..............................................................................

1
57

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET
REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. Buck, a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services ..................................................................
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member,
Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................

1
2

WITNESSES
Gates, Hon. Robert M., Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense;
accompanied by Robert F. Hale, Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Defense ................................
Mullen, ADM Michael G., USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff .......................

4
8

APPENDIX
PREPARED STATEMENTS:
Gates, Hon. Robert M. ......................................................................................
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. Buck ....................................................................
Mullen, ADM Michael G. .................................................................................
Smith, Hon. Adam ............................................................................................
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING:
[The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING:
Mr. Bartlett .......................................................................................................
Ms. Bordallo ......................................................................................................
Mr. Coffman ......................................................................................................
Mr. Conaway .....................................................................................................
Mr. Franks ........................................................................................................
Mr. Griffin .........................................................................................................
Mr. Heinrich .....................................................................................................
Mr. Johnson ......................................................................................................
Mr. Kline ...........................................................................................................
(III)

65
61
75
63

100
104
112
111
109
112
105
108
108

IV
Page

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARINGContinued

Mr. McKeon .......................................................................................................
Mr. Miller ..........................................................................................................
Mr. Palazzo .......................................................................................................
Mr. Ruppersberger ...........................................................................................
Mr. Shuster .......................................................................................................
Mr. Smith ..........................................................................................................
Mr. Smith on behalf of Ms. Giffords ...............................................................
Ms. Sutton .........................................................................................................
Mr. Turner ........................................................................................................
Mr. Wilson .........................................................................................................
Mr. Young .........................................................................................................

99
105
112
106
110
99
100
109
106
106
113

FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 16, 2011.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2118,
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. Buck McKeon
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. BUCK MCKEON,
A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you

for joining us today as we consider the Presidents fiscal year 2012
budget request for the Department of Defense.
On Monday I had the opportunity to sit down with Secretary
Gates to discuss this request. Based on the information I received,
I am pleased to see that the budget continues to support our military men and women fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The budget provides much needed increases in several key areas
such as military personnel and missile defense.
I am also pleased that the Department is taking our Nations financial position into account and has identified savings from lower
priority programs and efficiencies that can be reinvested into force
structure and modernization. As chairman, I, too, am concerned
that every dollar be invested in core missions of the Department.
Now it will be up to us, the members of the Armed Services Committee, to take up this proposal and scrutinize it with a fine-tooth
comb.
We must ensure that every dollar is spent on the right equipment, training and support needed by our troops, their families and
the Nations defense. Understandably, there will be winners and
losers in this process. Tough choices must be made, but I will not
support initiatives that will leave our military less capable and less
ready to fight.
In the request before us, most concerning is the reduction of an
additional $78 billion from the Departments funding top line, including a $13 billion cut in 2012, ultimately leading to zero percent
real growth in the outyears. Much of this savings appears to be
generated with the reductions to Army and Marine Corps end
strength in the 2015 to 2016 timeframe. The decision to reduce end
strength seems premature given the uncertainty in predicting the
full range of force and manpower requirements in Afghanistan
after 2014.
(1)

2
Furthermore, while some claim the reductions are not budgetdriven, I note that the savings from these reductions were included
in the Future Years Defense Plan even before the Marine Corps
completed its force structure review and before the Army had even
begun one. Both services have borne the brunt of two wars for the
past decade, and neither has reached its objectives for Active Component dwell time of 1 to 3. I cannot in good conscience ask them
to do more with less.
There are additional proposals that immediately warrant special
scrutiny, like the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, for which an
unfulfilled requirement remains. We must understand in greater
detail how the Department proposes to address this capability gap
before we can support abandoning a $4 billion investment we have
already made.
On a slightly different note, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that the new Congress must finish work on defense appropriations legislation that was left unfinished in the 111th Congress. I have concerns about the implications to our troops of funding the Department of Defense at fiscal year 2010 funding levels
in a yearlong continuing resolution [CR]. Therefore, I am pleased
that the House has taken up a defense appropriation for fiscal year
2011 this week. While I am disappointed there were not higher
funding levels for defense in this legislation, I support all efforts
by this Congress to avoid crippling the Department with a continuing resolution.
I would like to conclude by welcoming our witnesses, the Honorable Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense; and Admiral Michael
G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I look forward to continuing an open dialogue with you on these
issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 61.]
The CHAIRMAN. Now I will turn to my colleague and good friend
Ranking Member Smith for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome Admiral Mullen, Secretary Gates, Secretary Hale. I appreciate you being here.
And I want to begin by echoing the chairmans last comment
there about the need to pass a 2011 defense appropriations bill.
You all have done an excellent job of explaining to us just how
hamstrung you are by having to live with the CR for the last, I
guess it has been, almost 5 months now, the impact that has. And
I would urge all Members here to talk with folks at the Department of Defense to get a full understanding of just how that undermines our ability to carry out our national security requirements,
and how it even reaches over and potentially impacts what our
troops are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. A critical issue to get an
appropriations bill done so we are not operating with the CR.
And on this budget I want to congratulate the Secretary and the
Department of Defense for again, you know, making sure that they

3
provide our troops with the equipment and the support they need
to do the missions that we all have asked them to do. And compliments to this committee as well. Through the years they have
also stepped up to that task, particularly as the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan required much greater speed in meeting those needs.
This budget, I think, again reflects that top priority: Make sure our
troops get the equipment and support that they need.
I also feel that this budget does a good job of trying to confront
the budget realities that we are all aware of. I took a very hard
and close look at the Department of Defense across the board to try
to find savings and efficiencies, places where we can do better with
less money. We absolutely can do that.
And I think that is the most critical point that I want to make.
Simply spending money doesnt make us safer. We have to make
sure that that money is spent well and efficiently, and I dont think
there is anyone who would disagree, looking back at the last 15
years and some of the decisions that have been made, with the notion that we can do better, that we can get more for the money that
we are spending, particularly when you look at the acquisition and
the procurement process.
Again, I want to compliment this Secretary of Defense and his
team for really taking a hard look at some of the lessons that we
have learned through systems like Future Combat Systems, the F
35, other programs that have been more expensive than we would
have liked. I think we have learned a lot, and I think we are moving forward in a very positive direction.
And we also have to remember, as we look at this budget, two
other important factors. The defense budget has grown enormously:
2001, in current dollars, it was $316 billion; it went all the way up
to 708-. So we have had enormous growth, and we now need to figure out how to manage that.
And we also need to be mindful of the fact that a strong national
economy is critical also to our national security. An out-of-control
deficit jeopardizes that economy. So we have to try to make sure
that we can live within our means and do the job that we all have
been asked to do. And I appreciate the hard work that has been
done on that.
I want to just add one specific comment before I close. That is
the importance going forward of stability operations and understanding sort of our broad national security interests. I think we
have learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that development programs
can be every little bit as important as military programs in creating a stable and secure environment that protects our interests.
And I know the Secretary has spoken out strongly about the need
not just to have a strong military, but also to have a strong State
Department and a strong whole-of-government approach as we go
forward and try to figure out some of these stability operations. So
I appreciate your leadership on that and believe that those two will
be important issues.
With that, I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 63.]

4
The CHAIRMAN. Before we begin, let me comment that we do
have a full crowd here today, and I notice there are people out in
the hallway that would like to be in here, so I would request that
anyone who disrupts this hearing be removed by the Capitol Police.
This includes outbursts and holding signs.
This is a very important hearing and the decorum should be
maintained, and I would appreciate that that be held that way. We
will have noI have a very low tolerance level.
Let me, Mr. Secretary and Admiral, Chairman, let me thank you,
to begin with, for your many years of service, both of you, to the
country, and we all appreciate greatly the efforts and the things
that you are doing. I know that you are in a very, very tough job,
and I just want to, at the outset, let you know how much every
member of this committee appreciates your service to the Nation.
Mr. Secretary.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY
ROBERT F. HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Secretary GATES. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, members of the

committeehe doesnt get to talk very much anyway.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, members of the committee, I would
like to start with a few words about Congresswoman Giffords, who,
of course, should be with us today were it not for the tragic and
senseless attack in Tucson last month.
I have enjoyed working with Congresswoman Giffords in her capacity as a member this committee. She is a strong supporter of
the national defense and cares deeply about our troops and their
families, and she has pursued her oversight responsibilities with
dedication.
Our thoughts and condolences continue to be with the families
and victims of that attack. We send our best to the Congresswomans husband, Navy Captain Mark Kelly, for his upcoming
space shuttle mission and as he helps Mrs. Giffords through her recovery. We will miss Representative Giffords contributions today
and in the weeks and months ahead, and we, in the Department
of Defense, wish her a speedy and full rehabilitation.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
Presidents budget request for the Department of Defense for fiscal
year 2012, my fifth and final budget testimony for the Department
of Defense before this committee.
I want to thank the members of this committee for your support
of men and women in uniform serving in a time of war. I know you
join me in doing everything to ensure that they have all they need
to accomplish their mission and come home safely.
The budget request for the Department of Defense today includes
a base budget request of $553 billion and an Overseas Contingency
Operations request of $117.8 billion. These budget decisions took
place in the context of a nearly 2-year effort by this Department
to reduce overhead, cull troubled and excess programs, and rein in
personnel and contractor costs, all for the purpose of preserving the

5
global reach and fighting strength of Americas military in a time
of fiscal stress for our country.
In all, these budget requests, if enacted by Congress, will continue our efforts to reform the way the Department does business,
fund modernization programs needed to prepare for future conflicts, reaffirm and strengthen the Nations commitment to care for
the All-Volunteer Force, and ensure that are our troops and commanders on the front lines have the resources and support they
need to accomplish their mission.
My submitted statement includes more details of this request,
but I want to take this opportunity to address several issues that
I know have been a subject of debate and concern since I announced the outlines of our budget proposal last month: First, the
serious damage our military will suffer by operating under a continuing resolution or receiving a significant funding cut during fiscal year 2011; second, the recommended termination of the extra
engine for the Joint Strike Fighter; third, the projected slowing and
eventual flattening of the growth of the defense budget over the
next 5 years; fourth, the planned future reductions in the size of
the ground forces; and, fifth, the proposed reform and savings to
the TRICARE program for working-age retirees.
I want to start by making it quite clear that the Department of
Defense will face a crisis if we end up with a yearlong continuing
resolution or a significant funding cut for 2011. The Presidents defense budget request for 2011 was $549 billion. A full-year continuing resolution would fund the Department at about $526 billion, a cut of $23 billion. The damage done across the force from
such reductions would be further magnified as they would come
halfway through the fiscal year.
Let me be clear, operating under a yearlong continuing resolution or significantly reduced funding, with severe shortfalls that entails, would damage procurement and research programs, causing
delays, rising costs, no new program starts, and serious disruptions
in the production of some of our most high-demand assets, including UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]. Cuts in maintenance could
force parts of our aircraft fleet to be grounded and delay needed facilities improvements. Cuts in operations would mean fewer flying
hours, fewer steaming days, and cutbacks in training for home-stationed forces, all of which directly impacts readiness.
Similarly, some of the appropriations proposals under debate in
Congress contemplate reductions of up to $15 billion from the
Presidents original fiscal year 2011 request. I recognize that given
the current political and fiscal environment, it is unlikely that the
Defense Department will receive the full fiscal year 2011 request.
Based on a number of factors, including policy changes that led
to lower personnel costs and reduced activity forced by the continuing resolution, I believe the Department can get by with a
lower number. However, it is my judgment that the Department of
Defense needs an appropriation of at least $540 billion for fiscal
year 2011 for the U.S. military to properly carry out its mission,
maintain readiness and prepare for the future.
At this point I would like to address the ongoing debate over the
JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] extra engine. As most of you know, the
President and I, and the previous President and his Secretary of

6
Defense, as well as the Departments senior military leadership
have consistently and firmly expressed our opposition to continuing
this costly program. We consider it an unnecessary and extravagant expense, particularly during a period of fiscal contraction.
Congress has not spoken with one voice on this matter, and the Department has been operating this fiscal year under ambiguous
guidance at best.
Under those circumstances, I decided to continue funding the
JSF extra engine effort on a month-to-month basis. I did this not
because we had to, but because we chose to give Congress the opportunity to resolve this matter as a part of its ongoing debate on
the budget. However, this also means the American taxpayers are
spending $28 million a month for an excess and unjustified program that is slated for termination.
The President, the military services and I continue to oppose this
extra engine, and when the current CR expires, I will look at all
available legal options to close down this program. It would be a
waste of nearly $3 billion in a time of economic distress, and the
money is needed for higher-priority defense efforts.
Which brings me to this proposed $78 billion reduction in the defense budget top line over the next 5 years. To begin with, this socalled cut is, in fact, to the rate of predicted growth. The size of
the base defense budget is still projected to increase in real inflation-adjusted dollars before eventually flattening out over the next
5 years.
More significantly, as a result of the efficiencies and reforms undertaken over the past year, we have protected programs that support military people, readiness and modernization. These efforts
have made it possible for the Department to absorb lower projected
growth in the defense budget without, as Chairman McKeon
warned last month, leaving our military less capable and less able
to fight. In fact, the savings identified by the services have allowed
our military to add some $70 billion toward priority needs and new
capabilities.
And of the $78 billion in proposed reductions to the 5-year defense budget plan, about $68 billion comes from a combination of
shedding excess overhead, improving business practices, reducing
personnel costs, and from changes to economic assumptions. So in
reality only $10 billion of that 5-year total is directly related to
military combat capability. Four billion of that 10- comes from restructuring the Joint Strike Fighter program, a step driven by this
programs development and testing schedule that would have taken
place irrespective of the budget top line. And so the rest, about $6
billion out of 78-, results from the proposed decrease in the end
strength of the Army and the Marine Corps starting in fiscal year
2015.
Just over 4 years ago, one of my first acts as Defense Secretary
was to increase the permanent end strength of our ground forces,
the Army by 65,000 for a total of 547,000 and the Marine Corps
by 27,000 to 202,000. At the time the increase was needed to relieve the severe stress on the force from the Iraq war as the surge
was getting under way. To support the later plus-up of troops in
Afghanistan, I subsequently authorized a temporary further increase in the Army of some 22,000, an increase always planned to

7
end in fiscal year 2013. The objective was to reduce stress on the
force, limit and eventually end the practice of stop-loss, and to increase troop home dwell time.
As we end the U.S. presence in Iraq this year, according to our
agreement with the Iraqi Government, the overall deployment demands on our force are decreasing significantly. Just 3 years ago
we had 190,000 troops combined in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the
end of this calendar year, we expect there to be less than 100,000
troops deployed in both of the major post-9/11 combat theaters, virtually all of those forces in Afghanistan. That is why we believe
that beginning in fiscal year 2015 the U.S. can, with minimal risk,
begin reducing Army Active Duty end strength by 27,000, and the
Marine Corps by somewhere between 15- and 20,000. These projections assume that the number of troops in Afghanistan will be significantly reduced by the end of 2014 in accordance with the Presidents and NATOs [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] strategy.
If our assumptions prove incorrect, or world conditions change for
the worse, there is plenty of time to adjust the size and schedule
of this change.
It is important to remember that even after the planned reductions, the Active Army end strength would continue to be larger by
nearly 40,000 soldiers than it was when I became Defense Secretary 4 years ago. I should also note that these reductions are also
supported by both the Army and Marine Corps leadership.
Finally, as you know, sharply rising health care costs are consuming an ever larger share of this Departments budget, growing
from $19 billion in 2001 to $52.5 billion in this request. Among
other reforms, this fiscal year 2012 budget includes modest increases to TRICARE enrollment fees, later indexed to Medicare
premium increases for working-age retirees, most of whom are employed while receiving full pensions. All six members of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff have strongly endorsed these and other cost-saving
TRICARE reforms in a letter to Congress.
I understand that any change to these kinds of benefits prompts
vigorous political opposition. But let us be clear, the current
TRICARE arrangement, one in which fees have not increased for
15 years, is simply unsustainable, and, if allowed to continue, the
Defense Department risks the fate of other corporate and government bureaucracies that were ultimately crippled by personnel
costs, in particular their retiree benefit packages.
All told, the cumulative effect of the Departments savings and
reforms, combined with a host of new investments, will make it
possible to protect the militarys combat power despite the declining rate of growth and eventual flattening of the defense budget
over the next 5 years.
As a result of the savings identified and reinvested by the services, our military will be able to meet unforeseen expenses, refurbish war-worn equipment, buy new ships and fighters, begin development of a new long-range bomber, boost our cyberwarfare capability, strengthen missile defense, and buy more of the most advanced UAVs. But I should note this will only be possible if the efficiencies, reforms and savings are followed through to completion.
In closing, I want to address the calls from some quarters for
deeper cuts in defense spending to address this countrys fiscal

8
challenges. I would remind them that over the last two defense
budgets submitted by President Obama, we have curtailed or canceled troubled or excess programs that would have cost more than
$330 billion if seen through to completion. Additionally, total defense spending, including war costs, will decline further as the U.S.
military withdraws from Iraq.
We still live in a very dangerous and very unstable world. Our
military must remain strong and agile enough to face a diverse
range of threats from nonstate actors attempting to acquire and
use weapons of mass destruction and sophisticated missiles to the
more traditional threats of other states both building up their conventional forces and developing new capabilities that target our
traditional strengths.
We shrink from our global security responsibilities at our peril.
Retrenchment brought about by shortsighted cuts could well lead
to costlier and more tragic consequences later, indeed as they always have in the past. Surely we should learn from our national
experience since World War I that drastic reductions in the size
and strength of the U.S. military make armed conflict all the more
likely, with an unacceptably high cost in American blood and treasure.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working through this next phase
of the Presidents defense reform effort with you in the weeks and
months ahead to do what is right for our Armed Forces and to do
what is right for our country. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Gates can be found in the
Appendix on page 65.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF ADM MICHAEL G. MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN,
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Admiral MULLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, and distinguished members of this committee. I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the Presidents fiscal year 2012 defense
budget. Before I do, however, let me echo Secretary Gates comments about the very real dangers inherent in failing to pass this
years budget.
The fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution, if carried forward,
would not only reduce our account by $23 billion, it would deprive
us of the flexibility we need to support our troops and their families. The services have already taken disruptive and in some cases
irreversible steps to live within the confines of the CR, steps that
ultimately make us less effective at what we are supposed to do for
the Nation.
The Navy did not procure, as planned, a second Virginia class
submarine by the end of last month, nor was it able to buy government-furnished equipment for another Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The Army and the Marine Corps have curtailed or altogether frozen civilian hiring, and all the services are now prevented
from issuing contracts for new major military construction projects.
Some programs may take years to recover if the CR is extended
through the end of September. So I urge you to pass the fiscal year
2011 defense bill immediately. Even at a reduced top line, it will

9
provide us the tools we need to accomplish the bulk of the missions
we have been assigned.
Accomplishing those missions into the future demands as well
support of the Presidents fiscal year 2012 proposal. As the Secretary laid out, this budget, combined with the efficiencies effort he
led, provides for the well-being of our troops and families, fully
funds current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and helps balance global risk through streamlined organization, smarter acquisition and prudent modernization.
The Army, for instance, will cancel procurement of a surface-toair missile in the non-line-of-sight launch system, but it will continue production of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and spearhead
the development of a whole new family of armored vehicles.
The Navy will give up its Second Fleet headquarters, reduce its
manpower ashore, and increase its use of multiyear procurement
for ships and aircraft, allowing it to continue development of the
next-generation ballistic missile submarine, purchase 40 new F
18s, 4 littoral combat ships and another LPD17.
The Marines will cancel the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
[EFV] and, like the Army, reduce their end strength starting in
2015, but they will reinvest the EFV savings to sustain and modernize the Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the Light-Armored Vehicle, even as they advance a new concept of operations and restore
much of their naval expeditionary skills.
And the Air Force will be able to continue development of the
next tanker, a new bomber, and modernize its aging fleet of F15
fighters, all the while finding savings of more than $33 billion
through reorganization, consolidation and reduced facilities requirements.
None of this balancing will come on the backs of our deployed
troops. We are asking for more than $84 billion for readiness and
training, nearly $5 billion for increased ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] capabilities, and more than $10 billion
to recapitalize our rotary aircraft fleet.
These funds, plus those we are requesting to help build partner
capacity in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen, all
speak to the emphasis we are placing on giving our troops and
their partners in the field everything they need to do the difficult
jobs we have asked of them.
We must also give them and their families everything they need
to cope with the stress and strain of 10 years at war. That is why
I am so pleased with the funds devoted in this proposal, almost
three-quarters as much as the $200 billion budgeted for operations
and maintenance, to personnel, housing and health care issues.
As you may know, the Chiefs and I penned a rare 24-star letter
to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week expressing our
unqualified support for the military health care program changes
included in this budget. We have sought equity across all health
care programs, with beneficiaries and health care delivery providers having the same benefits as equivalent payment systems regardless of where they live or work. That, in turn, led us to propose
increases in TRICARE enrollment fees for working-age retirees.
These increases are modest and manageable and leave fees well
below inflation-adjusted out-of-pocket costs set in 1995 when the

10
current fees were established. We sincerely hope you will see fit to
pass them.
Please know that we will continue to invest wisely in critical care
areas to include research; diagnosis and treatment of mental health
issues and traumatic brain injury; enhanced access to health services and new battlefield technologies. We understand that changes
to health care benefits cause concern among the people we serve
and the communities from which we receive care, but we also understand and hold sacred our obligation to care completely for
those who have borne the brunt of these wars, as well as those for
whom the war never ends.
I am convinced that we havent even begun to understand the
toll in dollars and in dreams that war extracts from people. As the
grandsons and granddaughters of the World War II vets still struggle to comprehend the full scope of the horror those men yet conceal, so, too, will our grandchildren have to come to grips with the
wounds unseen and the grief unspoken unless, of course, we get it
right.
And I believe the investments we are making in wounded care
and family readiness will pay off in that regard, but it will take
time and patience and money, three things we seem so rarely to
possess in this town.
That brings me back to this particular budget request. With limited resources and two wars in progress, we should be prudent in
defining our priorities, in slaking our thirst for more and better
systems, and in controlling costs.
We should also be clear about what the joint force can and cannot do, just as we should be clear about what we expect from our
interagency and our international partners. Our global commitments have not shrunk. If anything, they have grown, and the
world is a lot less predictable now than we could have ever imagined. You need look no further than Tahrir Square to see the truth
in that.
Foolhardy would it be for us to make hasty judgments about the
benefits, tangible and intangible, that are about to be derived from
forging strong military relationships overseas, such as the one we
enjoy with Egypt. Changes to those relationships in either aid or
assistance ought to be considered only with an abundance of caution and a thorough appreciation for the long view, rather than in
the flush of public passion and the urgency to save a buck. The
$1.3 billion we provide the Egyptian military each year has helped
them become the capable, professional force they are, and, in that
regard, has been of incalculable value.
Of equal or greater value is increased appropriations for the
State Department and our request in this budget for something
called the Global Security Contingency Fund, a 3-year pooled fund
between the Pentagon and State that will be used to build partner
capacity, prevent conflicts and prepare for emerging threats. The
request is modest, an initial $50 million appropriation, along with
a request for authority to reprogram an additional $450 million if
needed. But what it will buy us is an agile and cost-effective way
to better respond to unforeseen needs and take advantage of
emerging opportunities for partners to secure their own territories
and regions.

11
We must get more efficient, yes, but we also must get more pragmatic about the world we live in. We can no longer afford bloated
programs or unnecessary organizations without sacrificing fighting
power. And we can no longer afford to put off investments in future
capabilities or relationships that preserve that power across the
spectrum of conflicts.
I have long said we must not be exempt in the Defense Department from belt tightening, but in truth there is little discretionary
about the security we provide our fellow citizens. Cuts can reasonably only go so far without hollowing the force. In my view, then,
this proposed budget builds on the balance we started to achieve
last year and represents the best of both fiscal responsibility and
sound national security.
Now, I dont know what sorts of questions Representative Giffords would ask me if she were sitting here today, but I do know
she wouldnt let me leave until I lauded the incredible effort of our
troops overseas as they finish one war in Iraq and begin to turn
corners in Afghanistan. I know you share my pride in them and
their families, and I know you will keep them foremost in mind as
you consider the elements of this proposal.
I thank you for your continued support of our men and women
in uniform and their families, and I look forward to your questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Mullen can be found in the
Appendix on page 75.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier,
I think everyone on this committee strongly supports your request
for an appropriation bill that will take care of the work that should
have been done last year, but if it had been done last year by Congress and the administration, we wouldnt even be having this argument, this fight, the thing that we are trying to resolve right
now on the floor.
So I am hopeful that we can wrap this up just as quickly as possible, and I know that all of the defense industry, all of the men
and women who wear the uniform, and all of your colleagues in the
Department are strongly behind that, as are all of the members on
the committee. So I hope we can get that done quickly.
The $78 billion thatyou know, that we are talking about as a
cut, I understand that it is not a cut as we would propose something being cut this year from last years budget. But last year,
when we were holding these hearings, and you projected out the
budget for the 5 years, the $78 billion was included in it.
Now, I commend you for what you have asked the services to do
to find efficiencies and save that $100 billion that they will be able
to mostly reinvest into more important items going forward. And
I guess we will continue to talk about the outgoing years in outgoing years, but we all understand we are in a tough financial situation in the country, and I think we all need to work together to
make sure that whatever reductions in future spending, we all
work together to make sure that it doesnt cut into our men and
women serving in harms way and their families.
One of the concerns I have had, as we have gone through the
QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and hearings last year and
this year, it seems to me that the budgets are not driven by so

12
much defense needsor procurement and the things that we are
talking about spending arent driven by threat needs, they are driven more by budgetary concerns. And as I indicated in my opening
statement, reductions to the Army and the Marine Corps end
strength, I can remember when you came, Mr. Secretary, and how
hard it was to increase the size of the force. And I understand that
even with these reductions, there still will be a larger force than
when you became Secretary 4 years ago. But as I look around the
world and see what is happening, the recent events in Egypt,
Yemen, Asia and other threats around the world, I have great concern about cutting the end strength.
And so my question is revolving around that. Is a reduction in
end strength conditions-based? If so, what metrics will the Department use to reevaluate this decision going forward? At what point
will we decide and what measurement will we use to decide if this
is the correct number to decrease our strength, and when will that
decision be made?
What was the 2016 end strength presumed by the QDR and during development of the National Military Strategy? And, finally,
how will this reduction in end strength affect the objective of 1-to3 dwell time for the Active Force?
Secretary GATES. Let me start and then ask the chairman to add
in.
First of all, I would say that it is conditions-based. And as I said
in my opening statement, if our assumptions about, for example,
the drawdown in Iraq prove incorrect, then I think we will be in
a position to change this decision and add to end strength further,
well before 2015, or at least find other ways to deal with the dollar
so that there isnt a reduction in end strength.
I would say the key metric is, and the most predictable variable
is, in fact, the drawdown in Afghanistan. A big assumption in this
is that we have a very much smaller presence in Afghanistan at
the end of 2014 than we do now, and I think you will know as early
as the end of 2012, beginning of 2013 whether that is going to happen, which allows plenty of time to alter these decisions.
The good thing about this approach is that because you dont
start to cut anything until 2015, you dont have to go out and recruit anybody; all you have to do is find other sources of the money.
And, you know, what was described to me a long time ago about
the outyears, the outyears are where everybodys dreams come
true.
And so just as an example, when I took this job, the forecast, the
projected budget for fiscal year 2012 in the 2007 Bush budget was
$519 billion. Our submission is for 553-. So these things do change
over time, and there is a lot of flexibility.
But I will say this about the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps
actually came forward with their proposal, and it was really unrelated to the budget. Both the previous Commandant and the current Commandant believe that when the Marines are out of Afghanistan, that the Marine Corps is both too large and too heavy
to fulfill its traditional missions going forward. And so they were
talking about reductions in Marine Corps end strength a year or
two ago, and so thatthey tie that very much to their mission.

13
And, as I say, we can revisit the Armysyou can revisit the
Armys end strength depending on the conditions in 2013 or 2014.
Admiral MULLEN. Mr. Chairman, all of us in the leadership, in
leadership positions in the military believe that we live in a time
of what we call persistent conflicts. It is very difficult to know, obviously, what is going to happen in 2015, 2016 timeframe. But to
your point and to the Secretarys answer, I think this really is conditions-based per se.
And in addition to the metric of certainly Afghanistan and Iraq,
and, you know, we will be in a position there in 2015, 2016, where
our force is substantially reduced, and to include in that the 25,000
marines or so who are there now. I would just echo what the Secretary said with Jim Conway, who was the previous Commandant;
Jim Amos, the current Commandant. They had been planning to
get smaller and lighter. They are too heavy. They are the Nations
second land force, which is not what they want to be, and they
have got to get back to some degree as we move ahead to their
roots, which is lighter and smaller.
With respect to the Army in particular, we have looked out
through the QDR at how many brigades would we have out there.
And the answer is, we are not sure. We planned around 6 to 10
or some number like that. We dont know where to look prudently
at the future as actually the Army has become much more expeditionary. And that is where we are headed, and I am very comfortable with that.
Each of the service chiefsall of us, but each of the service
chiefs, depending on which service you are talking about, some 60
to 70 percentwhen you add civilians, direct support contractors,
60 to 70 percent of our budget goes to people.
And so and as the Secretary said in his statement, you know, we
are on a way, on our way of becoming almost immobilized by just
what it costs in terms of our people. The health care piece is just
it is not an insignificant part of it, but it is an example. So we have
tried to achieve balance.
Probably the metric I would use is the one you suggested, which
is dwell time. We are now in this budget, as we look out a few
years, we will get to about in the 2015 timeframe where we are,
1 and 2. I think the Commandant would sit here and say that is
probably about where he wants to be in terms of rotating his force.
I think the Chief of the Army would say 1 and 3. And obviously
that will then depend on what the obligations will be.
But you can see now, in various examples, where we have our
troops home a lot longer than we used to, starting to be significantly longer than they were deployed. We are just in the beginning of that. We have got to get out to 1 to 2 and then in the case
look at really decisions around getting to 1 to 3 with respect to the
Army.
So I am comfortable that we have time, we can look at it. And
certainly the service chiefs would come in and change their recommendation, if you will, based on what I know about them, if the
conditions warranted it.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Ranking Member Smith.

14
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I have two sets
of questions.
Congresswoman Giffords staff has submitted to me some questions that she has, and I thank both of you for your kind words on
her behalf. And they focus on Department of Defense energy issues,
something that Congresswoman Giffords has worked a great deal
on, and basically using efficiencies and alternative to deal with our
energy needs and reduce our energy consumption.
She had introduced a bill, the Department of Defense Energy Security Act, in 2010. Many of those provisions were contained in our
fiscal year 2011 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], and
I wanted to follow up on that. And then specifically there is a program that the Marine Corps is using at a forward-operating base
in Afghanistan to use solar as a way to reduce their fuel consumption.
And I think the biggest point here to make is this isnt just about
saving money or dealing with the energy challenges, this also does
save lives. And the specific example there is that because they used
solar, they were able to significantly reduce their fuel consumption,
as I understand it, from like 20 gallons a day down to 2.5. And that
reduction means that fewer convoys have to come and go and bring
fuel in, which means that fewer people are exposed to the IED [improvised explosive device] threat. So there are very specific implications of this policy.
And going forward, I want to know, first of all, how the Department of Defense is doing implementing these programs, finding efficiencies, reducing our energy consumption through the use of efficiencies and alternatives; and then, second of all, what more we in
Congress legislatively need to do or can do to help you.
And if you could on those two questions, I would like to hear
some brief comments from you, but submit the answers for the
record to both Congresswoman Giffords office and to mine. But if
you could take a stab at that now, that would be great.
Admiral MULLEN. I think that the example that you actually give
of the Marines in Afghanistan is a terrific example, and it does exactly what you just described. And, actually, Marines in Anbar
Province several years ago started that, looking at the length of
their convoys, the number of people that were actually put in
harms way because of the logistics and transportation requirements. That has kicked in over to the Army and actually across all
the services.
So I think the efforts with respect to improving and reducing energy dependency are significant. The Secretary stood up a very,
very strong office to oversee this to both integrate the efforts, the
investments are there. The Air Force has, from my perspective, led
the way with respect to synthetic fuel, use of synthetic fuels in aircraft. The Navy has picked up on that. So there is a significant effort across the board.
There are green investments taking place in the Marine Corps
out in Twentynine Palms, for instance, just straight, solar energy.
The reductions that that base commander is seeing are significant
as well. That is also starting to be put in place in other bases
around the country.

15
So we are sharing the ideas. We know that we have got to reduce
our dependence significantly, and the leaders are focused on that.
We have seen some of the results, but we have expectations they
will be significantly greater in the future.
Mr. SMITH. I thinkMr. Secretary, go ahead.
Secretary GATES. I was just going to make two quick comments.
First I think credit needs to be given particularly to the Secretary
of the Navy, Ray Mabus, because I think the Navy has a really aggressive program in terms of reducing energy use.
Second, I would just note that I read just a few days ago that
the C17 was just certified for use of synthetic fuels.
Mr. SMITH. And that is whyjust two points in closing on this
issue before asking another questionis, number one, how much
difference this can make. I think there is generally in the energy
field I feel like, well, yes, they are talking about this and that and
the other thing, but when is it ever going to happen? It is happening. And I think the military is out front. Every base that I
visit, and there are many, they always talk about how they are
doing this, that, or the other thing on energy, and how much they
have reduced their energy consumption, and how much more efficient it is.
And then I think the challenge really is to get it to scale. As all
these experiments are happening, sort of quickly find out, okay,
here are the three things that just work the best. Let us get them
servicewide and get them implemented. So I think you are making
enormous progress then.
And we thank you, and like I said, if you could submit a more
detailed answer to Congresswoman Giffords office and mine, that
would be great. I would appreciate it.
Just two quick areas I want to ask about. One, as I mentioned
in my opening remarks, you know, development assistance is becoming a greater part of our national security. Stability is the goal
here. You know, our enemies now prey on ungoverned or ungovernable spaces. They find openings, places. It has certainly happened
in Afghanistan. It is happening in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen
to some extent.
So figuring out how to do stability is going to be critical. And I
know of necessity the Department of Defense has taken on a lot of
responsibility in this area through CERP [Commanders Emergency
Response Program] funds, through 1206, 1208. And part of the
problem there is these are responsibilities better done by, in some
cases, the State Department or Department of Agriculture or other
areas that know more about those.
But you guys have the money, and you have gotyou know, you
were the forward-leading folks. You are out there in the field having to figure this out. And, you know, frankly, there was not sufficient support elsewhere, so you had to do it.
The question is how do we begin to transition that responsibility,
because it is not a core responsibility of the military in many instances. It is a core responsibility of folks in other agencies. But
how do you make that work? How do we make sure those other
agencies have the support they need? How do we transfer the
funds? How do you envision that playing out?

16
Secretary GATES. Well, we have been advocating for much greater civilian involvement in these kinds of activities, not only in Iraq
and Afghanistan, but in global stability operations, at least since
I gave the Landon Lecture at Kansas State in 2007.
The biggest part of the problem, quite frankly, is jurisdictions
here on the Hill, and it is the difficulty the State Department has
in getting their appropriations and getting the money they need to
do their job.
If you took every Foreign Service officer in the State Department,
you would not have a large enough number to crew a single aircraft carrier. So finding the resources for the State Department
because many of these areas, what we have done is worked with
you, and you have been very helpful to us in developing some workarounds.
So on 1206, for example, we have dual-key arrangements. We basically leave the initiative up to the State Department in terms of
what we should do on some of those, and then we fund it, and we
partner with them. By rights that money should probably be in the
State Department to start with.
And so, I think this is an area where legislation, but especially
appropriations, are really important, because these stability operationsand there is a military component to it because it is developing partner security capability so that they can take care of the
security in their own countries so we dont have to send American
troops to do it.
And you can just tell from the costs in Iraq and Afghanistan the
differential in cost between our training somebody else to do it and
the State Department then providing the civilian support in terms
of governance and various other kinds of assistance compared with
having to use U.S. troops. So it is a challenge.
I think we have developed, over the last several years, very close
working relationships between State and Defense in these workarounds and in these jerry-rigged operations. But a long-term solution is the kind of global fund that Admiral Mullen was talking
about and so on.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, and you are absolutely right. I mean, security has to be a key component of any sort of development going
forward. You dont have security, you cant do that. And I think,
you know, the Philippines is an excellent example of where a very
small number of our forces trained the local security forces. And,
you know, you dont hear much about what is going on in the Philippines, and that is a good thing, and then you look at Iraq and
Afghanistan, and you can see the alternative is just so much more
costly, it is beyond imagination.
Just one final comment. When we are trying to figure out going
forward dealing with the difficult budget environment that we have
and trying to anticipate threats, you know, trying to make sure
that we are ready for whatever comes next, I just want to make
sure that people are aware of the fact that you cannot be ready for
everything. You know, from my earliest days on this committee,
one of the things that struck me was every day we would come and
talk about some threat, and then we would talk about how we are
not doing enough to be ready for it, and I get that.

17
But if you were to look out at the world and imagine every possible threat and say the job of this committee, or your job, is to
make sure that we spend enough money to be ready for any and
all contingencies, the defense budgetwell, it might not be infinite,
but it would be darn close. So we have to prioritize those threats
going forward with the budget, and we cant walk too far down the
road that if we can imagine a threat, we have to spend whatever
we possibly can to make sure that we are protected against it, because that sinks us in a different way.
We really have to prioritize. And towards that end I think that
the key going forward to get the right budget is to really look at
the requirements. I mean, it starts with the QDR. Once we decide
that there is a requirement, we then have to fund it. If we dont
fund it, we are not giving our troops the support that they need
to do the job that we, by definition, have asked them to do.
But I would like to think that we can also go back to the start
of that process, not just the end, not just the end, and say, gosh,
we have to fund this; but go back to the start and say, well, is that
really a requirement, or is that something we developed 10 or 15
years ago that is no longer appropriate? So getting there I think
we need to move in that direction.
Secretary GATES. Let me make just two quick comments about
that. First of all, if you look back to every time we have engaged
in a military operation since the Vietnam war, we have a perfect
record. Six months to a year before we engaged in that operation,
nobody had any idea we were going to do it.
And so the mantra for the Department that I have tried to inculcate is in the current budget environment, we have to be exceptionally careful about buying niche capabilities, very expensive weapons systems that have application in only one scenario. There may
be some of those that we need, but we need to be extremely judicious about those investments.
But our overall approach ought to be the broadestthe most
flexible range of capabilities to cover the broadest range of conflict
so that, you know, a C17 is going to be applicable whether we are
dealing with a near peer or whether we are taking aid into Pakistan. So, having capabilities that can form many missions is where
we need to focus most of our procurement dollars for the very reason you cited.
Admiral MULLEN. Sir, can I just make one comment? I think one
of the ways you do protect against the unknowns is to make sure
that your S&T [science and technology] and what I would call pure
R&D [research and development] budgets are both comprehensive
and broad and notand sometimes those become very easy targets.
You need the innovation, you need the kind of investment for the
capabilities of the future that really starts there, and the Secretary
has led this.
There has been a, you know, very focused effort to make sure
that is sustained. And in the totality of the budget, it is not a huge
amount of money, but its long-term leverage is just, you know, almost off the charts.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both witnesses.
You are doing an outstanding job for our country. We appreciate
it.

18
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Bartlett.
Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I want to put my comments in context. To the
best of my knowledge, the only interest in the engine for the F
35 in the district I have the honor to represent is an interest in
the 135. As far as I know there is no interest in the 136.
The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 requires
that you ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program includes measures to ensure competition
or the option of competition at both the prime contract level and
the subcontract level of such program throughout the life cycle of
such program as a means to improve contractor performance.
The current F35 acquisition strategy states, and I quote, To
preclude excessive reliance on a single engine supplier, an alternative engine program was established, unquote. The F35 could
represent up to 95 percent of the entire U.S. fighter fleet in the future. Use of a single engine could result in grounding of essentially
all of the fighters in all of the services.
The 2010 Hadley-Perry Quadrennial Defense Review Panel endorsed dual-procurement competition, and I quote, as the only way
to control program costs.
The senior Pentagon procurement official cited competition as
the cornerstone of defense acquisition. The Pentagons last update
of the F35 alternative engine business case indicated the competitive engine is at the break-even point in net present value. After
having opposed dual-source procurement for the littoral combat
ship [LCS] as not being, quote, real competition, unquote, the
Pentagon signed a dual-source procurement contract at the end of
last year with the two bidders for the LCS.
Sir, for the past 2 days, two papers have been circulated to Congress here, one of them on Monday, one of them on Tuesday. They
are unsigned and undated. It simply says, Prepared by the Department of Defense. The Office of the Secretary of Defense for
Legislative Affairs has refused to respond over the past 3 days to
why these papers are not dated or why they were not provided to
the Armed Services Committee.
Sir, when I was a little boy, my mother impressed on me that
an intent to deceive was the same thing as a lie. In each of these
papers, there is a statement, the F136 alternate engine is currently 3 to 4 years behind in development compared to the current
engine program, and yesterdays paper said, and the F136 engine
is already 3 to 4 years behind in its development phase.
Sir, the second engine, as you know, was started 4 years after
the first engine. As you know, the first engine is now about 24
months behind in its development. I understand that the second
engine is just 2 to 3 months behind in its development cycle. So in
reality, had they both been started at the same time, the second
engine would now be well ahead of the first engine.
Sir, are you comfortable that these two missiles that have gone
through Congress for the last couple of days do not constitute a violation of the statute that prohibits the Pentagon from lobbying
Congress?

19
Secretary GATES. I am not in the slightest aware of either one
of those documents. The only document that I am aware of is a letter that I sent to Representative Rooney, I think, yesterday or the
day before, and I can assure you it was both signed and dated.
I will just tell youwell, that was your question.
Mr. BARTLETT. Sir, these two papers are circulated. I will have
them bring copies down to you. They are unsigned and undated,
and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs refused to respond over the last 3 days as to why these papers are
not signed or why they were not provided. They were provided to
everybody else in the Congress except the Armed Services Committee is my understanding.
Are you comfortable, sir, that this does not constitute a violation
of the statute that says that the Pentagon cannot lobby Congress?
Secretary GATES. Let me see the papers and find out the background before I make a judgment on them.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. After you have a chance to peruse
those, if you would please respond to the gentleman in writing, we
would appreciate that.
[The information referred to was not available at the time of
printing.]
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reyes.
Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, welcome, and thank you for your service.
Let me add my concern to the issue of the reductions in end
strength for both the Army and the Marines, given some of the
challenges that we know we are going to have in the next few years
in the Horn of Africa and other areas. So I do hope we are careful
with those reductions, because in the final analysis, the ones that
pay the price are the service men and women and their families.
And most recently we have learned over the last 8 years in activating and using the Reserve forces, a lot of unintended negative
consequences impacted those families. So I also want to urge caution there.
The other concern that I have is yesterday it became a national
story about a lawsuit filed by former veteran women that are alleging what I think is a hostile work environment, and sexual harassment and other things. I know you are probably not in a position
to comment on that, Mr. Secretary, but I would like to work with
your office to better understand exactly the circumstances that led
to this lawsuit.
Secretary GATES. If I may, let me just sayand obviously what
I can say is limited by the fact of the lawsuit, but let me just say
a couple of things, because this is a matter of grave concern, I suspect, to everybody in the room.
First of all, I have zero tolerance for sexual assault. And I
worked with Chairman Mullen and the Joint Chiefs and the service
secretaries to see if we are doing all we can to prevent and respond
to sexual assaults. I have had multiple meetings with the senior
leadership of the Department on this issue over the past 4 years.
I have established four critical areas of departmental focus: reducing stigma associated with reporting, ensuring sufficient commander training, ensuring investigator training and resources, and
ensuring trial counsel training and resourcing.

20
We have hired dozen more investigators, field instructors, prosecutors and lab examiners. We have spent close to $2 million over
the last 2 years to train our prosecutors so that they are better
able to be successful. We have expanded the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator and Victim Advocates tenfold from 300 to
3,000, and we now have those advocates at every base and installation in the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. The court
martial percentages have increased from 30 percent to 52 percent.
So we are making headway. The fact is we arent where we
should be. It is a matter of grave concern, and we will keep working at it.
Mr. REYES. Yes.
Admiral MULLEN. Sir, I would certainly more than just echo
what the Secretary said in terms of zero tolerance. This has been
an issue actually over the course of the last 6 or 7 years. It has
been an issue of great focus. And it is unacceptable that we havent
gotten where we need to be on this.
We know this is an extraordinarily difficult issue, and I know,
both as a former service chief as well as knowing the current service chief, it is an area of focus. It wasnt that long ago it was a significant area both in the combat zone in Iraq. There still is enough
anecdotal information coming out of both Iraq and particularly in
Afghanistan to certainly be of concern.
What the Secretary said in terms of the investments in terms of
improvements in education, focus on leadership is exactly right, but
we also have, I thinkwe still have significant work to do, and the
leadership is focused on that.
Mr. REYES. Thank you.
Let me just mention quickly two other things. First of all, I represent Fort Bliss, who in the area of green energy is hoping to be
off the grid by the 20152016 timeframe. That is a huge compliment to the work that you are both supporting in terms of alternative energy.
And then the last thing is I would urge you, Mr. Secretary, to
work closely with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to find a way
to computerize as service men and women come out of Active Duty
into the Veterans Administration jurisdiction, that there be a way
of doing a better job through automation.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I thought that the sentence you added towards
the close of your statement, that retrenchment brought about by
short-sighted cuts could well lead to costlier, more tragic consequences later, indeed as they always have in the past, is a very
powerful statement to me. I think it is a warning to all of us somewhat related to the conversation you were having with Mr. Smith
about 6 months out, we never know what we are about to get into.
And I guess it is that feeling that really you express better than
I could that leads me to be concerned about not just end strength,
but force structure in the future.
I notice that the independent panel of the QDR, chaired by Steve
Hadley and former Secretary Perry, with all these people you know

21
well on it, expressed their concern about a growing gap between
our interests and our military capability to protect those interests
in a complex, challenging security environment. That is along the
very same lines you were talking about with our diverse, complicated, difficult threats. And their conclusion was that they believe the current size and current end strengths of the Army and
Marine Corps should be retained.
And I heard what both of you said, that this is conditions-based,
and we will see how it goes, and we can change our mind, but I
am under the impression that the end strength and force structure
is not something that you can just flip a switch and say on/off, that
it is the kind of thing that you have got to plan ahead for, both
in budgets and equipment, in the personnel pipeline for training.
It is something that has to be planned for.
And so I guess I would appreciate a little moreespecially since
this is, as you say, your last appearance before usa little more
of your thoughts about not just end strength, but the force structure moving ahead with the kinds of threats that at least we understand are on the horizon, failed states, trouble in the Middle
East, the kinds of stability operations that you all were talking
about from a financial standpoint. But all of that is very manpower-intensive. And so I would appreciate your thoughts about
how we on this committee can best prepare us to deal with those
kinds of challenges ahead, even if we dont know exactly what they
are.
Secretary GATES. Well, first of all, as I look ahead, I think, as
I say, and as both the chairman and I have said, the end strength
that I approved in 2007 for both services will remain in place at
least until 2015, and those plans could be altered depending on circumstances.
As I look around the worldand we were talking about stability
operationsone of the areas where we have had a significant expansion of capabilities over the last few years has been in our Special Operations Forces. And they often play the training role that
Mr. Smith was talking about in these stability operations. And one
of the big moves we have made that has not been noticed very
much is that this increase in soft capabilities over the last 2 or 3
years has been moved out of the supplementals and into the base
budget so that those soft capabilities that we will use in a lot of
these unstable conditions that we look around the world and see
will be sustained even once we stop getting overseas contingency
appropriations and so on.
I will tell you the areas of force structure that worry me a lot,
and they are areas that this committee in the years to come is
going to have to address. For example, the number of our surface
ships, the numbera number of the Navy ships that were built
during the Reagan years will basically reach the end of their
planned life in the 2020s. And where the money comes from to replace those surface ships or to get to 313, which is the Navys goal
from the 287 we have now, I think is going to be a challenge. And
especially if you put it alongside for the Navy acquiring a new ballistic missile submarine for the Air Force, is the Air Force, in fact,
in 2020 or 2025 going to be able to afford a new tanker, an F35,
and a new penetrating bomber?

22
So there are some tough choices in terms of big capabilities that
are coming down the road. They are not facing us right now, and
what we have been able to do is to give future Congresses and future Presidents choices because we are making investments in
things like the SSBNX [next-generation ballistic missile submarine], like the new bomber and so on. But down the road when
procurement starts, there are going to be some very tough decisions
that are going to have to be made.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Admiral and Secretary, for being before us again
today.
And, Secretary Gates, I just would like to thank you for your
service because you, obviously serving under two Presidents just
have been really wonderful to work with. And I think so many of
us here who have been on this committee for a long time really appreciate your candor and your desire to work with us to make
things better at the Pentagon. So thank you for that.
You know, we find ourselves in two wars, and it has been, I dont
knowI am losing trackmaybe about 8 years. And when you are
in a time of war, there is always the, you know, fog of war, and
you want to fund, you want to make sure you win, you want to
make sure your soldiers and airmen and seamen and marines and
Coast Guard and all are taken care of and have what they need
when they are on the front lines. So I think what we have seen is
really an increase in monies, at least over the 14 years, now 15
years, that I have been on this committee.
But, you know, just in January, the Department of Defense came
out with the report stating that in the past 3 years, the Pentagon
had awarded $285 billion to companies that were defrauding the
Pentagon; $285 billion in 3 years. And I know when I looked
through your budgets, and I have talked to you, and we have
worked through that you are taking extensive initiatives to bring
efficiency and savings to the Department. And I know we set up
the task force with Mr. Andrews on this committee to do acquisition in a different manner, and we believe that we will find some
of this fraud, and we will contract in a different way, and we will
begin to see some savings from that.
But when something like $285 billion over 3 years occurs, it really is working against all the hard work that you and others and
some in this Congress have done in terms of getting rid of the
waste in the Department. And what really concerns me is that Senator Sanders requested that investigation. If he had not, we would
have never seen that $285 billion report.
So my question is, what is in place for the Department of Defense to catch those types of things? Were they not in place? Do we
have new guidelines now that we have seen that that came forward? And what can you do, and what can we do together, to ensure that these types of companies never get a contract again from
the Federal Government?
Secretary GATES. Well, I am not familiar with the study that you
cite, but I will tell you that there have been a number of changes
made over the last year or so in terms of our approach to acquisi-

23
tion, beginning with the legislation that the Congress passed on acquisition reform. The one exception that I have made to the freeze
on civilian hiring for the next 5 years in the Department is, in fact,
in the acquisition area and in hiring professionalbuilding up our
own professional cadre of acquisition experts. Part of the reason for
that is we have had too many instances where we have contractors
letting contracts to contractors instead of people who have the interests of the Department of Defense and the U.S. taxpayer at
heart. So professionalizing our acquisition workforce is a very high
priority.
We have really changed a lot in the last year or so in terms of
our procedures and our processes, first of all, just in negotiating
smarter contracts, and we have seen some real benefits from that.
And the example was used in another context of the littoral combat
ship. Being able to get these two into a real competition got the
price down far enough that we were actually able to buy more
ships because of that.
So I think we have a lot of efforts underway. We have thousands
of auditors. We have about 10,000 lawyers. And so the key is, I
think, having the acquisition professionals who can discern these
bad behaviors and, first of all, prevent them from happening in the
first place, but then be quicker and more effective in catching
them.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you. My time is over. We will make sure
we get that Department of Defense report to you so you can take
a look at that. And I have some other questions, but I will submit
them for the record because of the time. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Akin.
Mr. AKIN. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I want to start by saying I really respect your decisiveness. Nobody could say that you are afraid to wade in and
make the tough decisions, and certainly we need that kind of leadership.
I dont always appreciate the communication strategy of letting
us know. You say that sometimes you dont know for 6 months before whether you are going to be into a conflict. Sometimes we dont
know whether a program is going or not, and it is a matter of
about a day or so that we find out. So sometimes on this committee, it would be helpful if you worked on the communications
and give some of us a heads-up as to what you are thinking and
where we are going because we are trying to play as a team with
you.
Particularly in that regard, I have shifted over, I am now on the
Budget Committee and trying to help people to understand the difference in growth of entitlements and what has happened to the
defense budget as a percent of GDP [gross domestic product]. As
you know, the defense budget has gone very much down since
1965, and the entitlements are, whatever it is, 6- or 700 percent
increase. But we need to make the case to make sure that you are
not so pinched on money that you cant get the job done.
So I hope that you look at us as partners and helpers. If you are
going to all of a sudden, for instance, going to whack the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle [EFV], which happens to be in our com-

24
mittee, it would be helpful to have some idea that you are thinking
about that as we move from full speed ahead to all stop. You know,
it is a little helpful to have a heads-up on it.
I was interested to hear you reflect on where you were concerned
about where we are overall. I also am concerned about the number
of ships. I had a chance to spend 3 hours in one of those situation
rooms that was designed to give us a picture from Hail Britannia,
Ruler of the Seas, and all through our history. And one of the big
lessons from that was you fight the war with the ships that you
have, or at least the ones you have on the waves. You cant design
a new ship and build it because the war will be over by the time
you get there.
My concern was we were talking about a 313-ship Navy. We are
down to 287, and as you pointed out, when you put the ballistic
missile submarine or something in there, boy, that budget just
blows up. So I certainly hope we can work on whatever we can do
to try to continue on the building.
The other thing, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, I dont really give a rip what particular platforms we have, but it seems to be
nonnegotiable that marines have to get from the ocean to the land,
and they have to get there quick enough, and not seasick enough,
and not full of diesel fumes enough that they can actually fight
when they get to shore. And I am not convinced that we have an
adequate strategy without having that vehicle or something to fill
that gap. So it is something we are going to take a look at, but I
would hope that you would at least allow us to go through that and
be flexible with us in saying if we dont have a good strategy, let
us make sure we have a good one, because I think the Brits decided they werent going to do that capability, and then they got
in the Falkland Island war and just about lost it because they
hadnt planned to be able to get their marines on the shore.
So I just wanted to allow you to respond to my rambling here a
little bit. But we want to work with a team. That is my main point
with you. But we need a little bit of a heads-up before you make
your decisive moves. Thank you, sir.
Secretary GATES. First of all, on the EFV, let me just say publicly
and for the record, the Department of Defense totally supports the
Marine Corps in a firm requirement for an amphibious assault capability for the Marines. We just dont want to spend $15 billion,
which is virtually all of the Marine Corps ground vehicle procurement budget, for enough vehicles to take 4,000 out of 202,000 Marines from ship to shore.
Now, I think the Commandantand it should be clear, this was
a recommendation from the Commandant to the Secretary of the
Navy, and from them to me. And I think we should also understand the Commandant does have an alternative plan in terms of
first accelerating the Marine personnel carrier; second, upgrading
part of the existing amphibious assault vehicle fleet; and then
third, designing a new assaultamphibious assault vehicle, but
one without the expensive exquisite capabilities of the EFV. So
there is a commitment to this, and there is money in the fiscal year
2012 budget to begin pursuing this.
And with respect to your first observation, I would just say that,
first of all, I think that most of the members of this committee be-

25
lieve that I have been pretty honest, pretty forthcoming, and candid and transparent ever since taking this job, and I fully recognize
the constitutional role of Congress with respect to our military
forces. And, in fact, in my first commencement address at the
Naval Academy, I spoke to the midshipmen about that very fact
and the importance of Congress and for them to stay apolitical,
among other things.
But at the same time, I have to have a disciplined decision process inside the Department of Defense. And to tell you the truth,
until a few years ago, the place leaked like a sieve, and I couldnt
make an internal decision without it being in the newspapers or
that process being in the newspapers. And so I have tried to instill
some discipline in the Department, and the truth is that by going
out on January 6th with what we have in mind for the fiscal year
2012 budget, this committee and its counterpart in the Senate got
a 6-week head start in evaluating the fiscal year 2012 budget over
every other committee in Congress and every other part of the
Presidents budget. And I got the Presidents approval to go ahead
and do that.
The same thing happened in the spring of 2009 when I came up.
I made a lot of decisions in the spring of 2009 on programs. Thirtythree of them came up here, all of the major ones, And in every
single one of those, Congress had an opportunity to evaluate it and
decide whether to go forward or not. Right now, 32 of the 33 are
in law.
So I think that I absolutely agree with you, we need to do this
as a team. But I also have to have a disciplined decision process
inside the Department of Defense so that I can get everybodys
point of view, people can speak up in meetings, can disagree, and
we can work things out before making a decision.
Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Andrews.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. The highest compliment
I can pay you is that you reflect the same level of excellence of the
men and women that you lead, and we appreciate all three of your
service to our country.
I apologize for not being personally present for your testimony,
but I have read it. And, Mr. Secretary, I wanted to direct your attention to page 4 of your written testimony, which goes into a list
of the savings that you are proposing.
First let me thank you for proposing them. I think too often the
debate here has been trivialized by people who, I think incorrectly,
say our military budget is just too large because it looks too large
without being able to talk about the needs the country has, and
then others who would look at any reduction as somehow a threat
to national security without real and fair analysis. I cannot think
of a person better suited to lead us to a mature discussion of this
than you, and I thank you for taking that leadership role.
I want to ask you a couple of questions. You talk about $11 billion over the, I guess, the 5-year window from resetting missions,
priorities, functions for defense agencies and OSD [Office of the
Secretary of Defense]. What does that mean more specifically?

26
Secretary GATES. Let me answer quickly and then ask Mr. Hale
to elaborate.
What we have asked every defense agency and every part of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense to do is to what we call rebaseline their activities; just start with a clean sheet of paper, what are
you doing, what should you be doing, and how many people does
it take to do that. And so this is one of the areas in which we are
able to shed staff contractors, in which we are able to reduce the
number of people that are working in these areas. We are consolidating some activities. We are eliminating other activities. And so
it really has to do on the civilian side of the Department how do
we make the defense agencies and OSD itself more efficient and
find savings. So that is the basic umbrella.
Mr. ANDREWS. If I may, this goes to your premise of your earlier
arguments, which I understand as being finding ways to make
more efficient what we do in our logistical operations so that we
can become more effective in our actual defense activities. Is that
a fair summary of what you are trying to do?
Secretary GATES. Yes, sir. And the defense agencies have a lot
of people and a lot of money, and they have grown a lot over the
last decade. And frankly, we thought that it was time to take a
fresh look at all of this, and I think it has been a long time since
anybody has really gone into this in the way we have.
Mr. ANDREWS. Because I am one who would be eager to try to
work with you to find more savings in these and other areas. And,
in fact, I think you will find that there are members of both parties
willing to do that.
Secretary GATES. I think there are two areas where we have not
realized the opportunities that we have. After all, we came up with
$178 billion worth of structural changes, overhead changes, economic changes in the space of about 6 or 8 months. There are two
areas, for example, where I think we have the opportunity to save
a great deal more money. One is in acquisitions, which we have
just been talking about, but in negotiating smarter, better contracts. And we have seen this already on the SSBNX, on the LCS,
on several different programs, on space satellites.
The other, though, is in information technology. And we have got
to start on that in this effort, but it is just complex enough that
we havent gotten as far as we would like.
But I think those are just two areas where we could do a lot
more.
Mr. ANDREWS. Many of us, Mr. Secretary, are eager to be your
partner in that effort.
I want to thank Secretary Hale in particular for being very accessible and very precise whenever we need to speak to him.
Let me say one thing that I would leave you with that I would
take some personal responsibility for and hope that some of our colleagues would. You have a billion dollars for eliminating unnecessary studies and internal reports. A lot of them emanate from us.
And there is a tendency when we want to try to change the law
to settle for, well, we will just put a provision in and ask the Pentagon to do a report. As someone who has violated that rule myself,
I would be willing to try to not do that in the future and try to
urge our colleagues to do the same thing.

27
Secretary GATES. We will give you some ammunition. From now
on all reports, whether they are internally commissioned or externally commissioned, will on the front page have what it costs to
prepare the report.
Mr. ANDREWS. You should also put the name of the person who
asked for it.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Forbes.
Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. And I want
to just say how much we respect your office. And I hope that you
wont conclude that it is disrespectful if we try to get your answers
concise enough to fit into the 5 minutes we have, but it is just oftentimes so difficult for many of us, at least on this side, to get information from the Department of Defense.
One of the things that we saw on January the 26th when your
Deputy Secretary Mr. Lynn was here, he testified that the Department had failed to comply with the law requiring audited financial
statements be filed annually in the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
all years, of course, that you were Secretary of Defense. And my
first question is, for any of those years, 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010,
were you unaware that the law required that DOD [Department of
Defense] file audited financial statements?
Secretary GATES. I certainly did notwas not aware that we
were in violation of the law.
Mr. FORBES. So you did not know that you were in violation of
the law.
The second question. Mr. Lynn further testified that no such
statements would be filed this year, but he said that it was a priority of the Department of Defense that you get in compliance, and
that you had a plan to do it. Has that always been a priority of
yours since you have been Secretary of Defense?
Secretary GATES. Yes, it has. And, in fact, I think if you go back
to testimony 4 years ago, the person who had the job before Mr.
Hale had begun the planning and execution of getting us to a position where we could comply with the CFO [Chief Financial Officer]
law
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Secretary, if I couldI dont know if we have
the opportunity to put it up on the screen, but hopefully we will,
and on the monitors; but if not, there is a chart right over here
and there it is. It might be hard to see, but you can see this screen
over here, and I am wondering if you recognize that Web site at
all. And the reason I sayjust to refresh your memory, there is a
copy of it here. I know it is hard to see. But this is your Web site,
and this is live. This is not something on the screen that we made
a copy of. This is what you would have seen at that testimony you
are talking about in 2007, or if we had done it in 2008, 2009, 2010,
or if anybody were to go to it today. And it says, this Web site is
designed to provide all the information you need to understand the
budget and financial management policy of the Department of Defense.
Mr. Secretary, what it clearly states on there, if we had had that
testimony then, is that the Department of Defense would have been

28
in 100 percent compliance and given 100 percent audited financial
statements by the year 2010. But in point of fact, according to what
Mr. Lynn testified, the Department was off 100 percent. Is that not
accurate in that we have filed no audited financial statements?
Secretary GATES. We certainly have not filed clean audits. That
is for sure.
Mr. FORBES. And, Mr. Secretary, the question I would have for
you is would you authorizeyou have been given by the taxpayers
of this country $2.5 trillion essentially since you have been Secretary of Defense. Would you authorize the expenditures of these
sums if you were not convinced there were adequate accounting
systems in place to note where they were being spent?
Secretary GATES. Mr. Forbes, I am confident that we have the financial processes, all of which were, by the way, designed for budgetary planning and which the Congress has relied on for a long
time, that give me confidence that we know where the money is
going. Can we do the kind of audits that are required by the CFO?
No. But we are spending between 200- and $300 million a year to
get in compliance. We have a short-term and a long-term plan to
get there, which I would be happy to share with the committee.
So we understand our obligation to get to this, but the reality is
we do have systems in place to deal with fraud, to deal with other
issues, and that provide us with the tools to do financial management.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Secretary, I dont want to cut you off, but I only
have about 40 seconds left. And the reality is this: You were 100
percent off. And I want to be kind, and I want to be respectful, but
the reality is that taxpayers have entrusted your Department with
$2.5 trillion. And here is the way we basically repay them with the
accounting. You call it disciplined decisionmaking, but we have
issued gag orders to stop people from the Pentagon in talking to
Members of Congress about where those dollars are; didnt get a
shipbuilding plan in the year it was required by law; didnt get the
aviation plan in the year it was required by law; havent had the
audited financial statements required by law; and the cuts that you
give us, Mr. Secretary, we only get backfilled information.
And, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, so I will yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen, I think we all applaud you for your extraordinary service, and I certainly want to
add my voice as well.
Since you said, Secretary Gates, that this is your last budget, I
believe also, Chairman Mullen, is this your last budget as well?
Admiral MULLEN. As far as I know.
Mrs. DAVIS. Given that, several of my colleagues have asked
some questions, I think, that have asked you to kind of take out
of your notes and what is it that concerns you the most, whether
it is in the budget or outside the budget? And I wonder if you could
speak just a bit to any disconnect that you see between what the
needs are and what the budget actually reflects? It is a little bit
of the what keeps you up at night question, but I would hope that

29
as this is your final, if there is anything in particular that you
would like to focus our attention on that may not have been stated.
Admiral MULLEN. I will take a crack at it. As I look at the future, there has been a discussion today about force structure, and
I worry in the longer run. I think we are okay right now, but I
worry in the longer run that we align our force structure with the
national security requirements we have as a country. And at some
point in time, with the force structure we have, we are going to
have to start saying there is going to be some stuff we are going
to need to stop doing.
I worry about resetting from these wars. And it is going to take
uswe will get 2 years of dwell time here in the next few years,
but we are not really reset for 2 years as opposed to instantaneously when that starts. And so I worry about properly resetting
during a time where the challenges in the world continue to grow.
There is no better example than just the last couple of weeks, and
I think that will continue. You track crises back over the course of
the time the Secretary has been here and I have been in this job,
they continue to grow.
I am comfortable that we have the best military we have ever
had, our young men and women, and we just need to make sure
that we sustain that over the long term.
We will talk a lot about equipment in these hearings. If we get
it right for our people and our families, we will be fine; and if we
dont, it will be a real struggle.
And then in two specific areas, not that we dont have challenges,
as have been mentioned, but two specific areas that are of great
concern to me. One is space, and the other is cyber. And those are
areas that are what I would call too often niche areas. They are
not anymore. They are domains without boundaries, without rules.
We have international players as well as individuals, particularly
on the cyber side; extremely dangerous in both realms, particularly
in cyber. We have invested in that heavily. We have stood up a
command. Those are initial steps. We have got a long way to go.
Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Secretary, did you want to respond to that?
Secretary GATES. Since this is my last hearing, I will be bold and
tell you two things that worry me, and they both have to do with
Congress. One is the disconnect between the roles and missions
that have been given to the military by Congress and the President, and the discussion of the defense budget now and in the future here on the Hill, where it is treated more often than not as
a math problem.
You have 18.9 percent of Federal outlays, which, I might add, is
the lowest percentage of Federal outlays for defense other than the
late 1990s, early 2000s, since before World War II, and yet because
we have a half a trillion dollars, then we must be part of the problem in terms of the Nations debt and the deficit. I would tell you
that on a $1.6 trillion deficit, if you cut the Defense Department
by 10 percent, which operationally would be catastrophic, that is
$50 billion. You havent gotten very far toward dealing with the
deficit.
The second thing that I worry about is that what we have found
in the executive branch is that the elements of the different parts
of the executive branch are increasingly integrated in the way they

30
deal with problems, the State Department and the Defense Department and AID [Agency for International Development], and yet the
jurisdictional lines here on the Hill are such that you dont get to
see the overall national security picture that we see in the situation room or that the President sees that brings intelligence, and
the State Department, and Defense and these different elements
together and integrate those. And I think it is a challenge because
this is becoming more and more the case in the problems that the
Nation is dealing with in national security, and yet Congress continues to have essentially a stovepipe approach to dealing with
these issues. And this is one of the reasons the State Department
doesnt get enough money.
So as you all think about the future, those are two things that
concern me.
Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit other questions for the
record. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
We are going to turn to Mr. Wilson, and then we are going to
take a 5-minute short break.
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Admiral, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being
here today. In particular, Admiral and Secretary Gates, I want to
thank you for your service as you highlight the conclusion of your
careers in the military, serving our service members.
I do have the same concern of our chairman. It is a bipartisan
concern, I was listening to Congressman Reyes, and that is with
the drawdown, with the force reduction in the Army and Marine
Corps, I am very concerned on the effect on dwell time. I am very
concerned about the effect on morale, morale of the service members, on their families, the consequence of them not feeling secure
as to their military futures, of people who have been so dedicated
to our country.
With that in mindand it has been stated that it is going to be
conditions-basedMr. Secretary, what flexibility will there be for
the service chiefs in terms of the conditions? And it is my view that
the conditions have even changed in the last month with the instability in the Middle East, the potential facing an asymmetric
enemy on a broader scale that would require more boots on the
ground.
Secretary GATES. Well, I think that your concern about an asymmetric threat is correct, and I would tell you that I think that those
who will face this asymmetric threat to the greatest extent are, in
fact, the Air Force and the Navy, particularly as we look at capabilities that China and others are developing, the kinds of activities
that the Iranians are engaged in, and the North Koreans and so
on. That is why we put a freeze onboth the Air Force and the
Navy in 2007 were drawing down their personnel, and we stopped
that. So there are no drawdowns planned for the Air Force and the
Navy.
As I have said earlier, the Marine Corps, this is their idea, and
I think you need to talk to General Amos and get his thinking and

31
his logic in terms of why the Marine Corps ought to be smaller and
lighter, assuming we come out of Afghanistan.
And I would tell you the kinds of instability that we are seeing
in the Middle East now, it is difficult for me to imagine circumstances in which we would send U.S. ground forces in any of
those situations. Those are problems that are emanating from within those countries, and it is primarily a diplomatic challenge for us,
although I would say if you ever wanted proof of the valueas the
chairman said in his opening statement, of the value of our military assistance to Egypt over the past 30 years, it has been in the
behavior of the Egyptian Army over the past 3 weeks and their
professionalism in dealing with the kinds of situations they have.
But, look, 2015 is a long way away, and I think that the Departmentand we are talking about $6 billion. So I think that the
service chiefs have a lot of flexibility in terms ofif they determine
in 2013, 2014, thereabouts that drawing down from 547,000 or
from 187,000 in the case of the Marine Corps isor 202,000, rather, then they can obviously make that pitch.
I would tell you, though, a lot is going to depend on who is the
Secretary of Defense and who is the President, because there had
been opposition within the Department of Defense to increasing
end strength when I arrived, and that is why it hasnt happened.
The previous chairman of this committee had been a strong advocate of increasing end strength, and many of you had been as well,
but it didnt happen until you had a different Secretary of Defense.
So that will matter, too, as well as the service chiefs.
Mr. WILSON. And I do want to commend the surge, I think successful, in Afghanistan. I am very grateful that so many of the
Army personnel were trained at Fort Jackson, and I represent Parris Island Marines, making such a difference.
Also in regard, Secretary, to the National Guard, what is the status of our equipping of the National Guard for their domestic and
foreign capabilities?
Secretary GATES. This is a real success story. This is something
that I am pretty proud of. When I came to this job, the equipment
on hand across the Nation on average for the National Guard was
about 40 percent. It is now in the mid-70s. The historical equipment on hand for the Guard is about 70 percent. So we are well
above that. But more importantly than that is that they are getting
first-line equipment. They are not getting hand-me-downs from the
Active Force. They are getting the same high-quality, high-tech
equipment that the Active Force is.
Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will take a 5-minute recess and
reconvene at 10 minutes to 12:00.
[Recess.]
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gates, the first question is for you. Do you have a date for
the tanker decision? Sorry. Secretary Gates. Do you have a date for
the tanker decision?
Secretary GATES. Sorry?
Mr. LARSEN. Do you have a date for the tanker decision?

32
Secretary GATES. No. But I would say within the next 2 to 3
weeks, something like that.
Mr. LARSEN. Okay. Thanks.
Admiral Mullen, your written testimony discussed the pooled resources idea. Your oral testimony actually gave a title, and that is
about as much right now as we have. You both have testified even
today about the need to combine State and Defense activities. Can
you talk a little bit more about how you envision this collaborative
full resource idea and when we can expect to see actual language?
Admiral MULLEN. From my perspective, I think what has worked
with Statebetween State and DOD is what I would call this dualkey capability that assigns responsibilities to the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State to both agree that we are going to spend
the money a certain way. And I think that is reflective of the requirements which continue to emerge. I mean, it gets focused on
Iraq and, to some degree, in Afghanistan, but it is really the preventive aspect of this, the investment ahead of time so we are not
in conflict. In great part, to the Special Forces, for us, for example,
is one area. But we cant do it all, and that is really what this
speaks to.
I think in terms of the, you know, level of detail and proposal,
I mean, I think we can get that to you, you know, relatively quickly. The language is there right now, as I said. It is $50 million initially with the language we would like, language which would
allow us to reprogram an additional 450-, you know, out of our
money as needs emerge. Often times this is a speed issue, I mean,
as opposed to we need to do it now as these emerge, as opposed
to take months or maybe even a year.
Mr. LARSEN. Do you envision that you need additional authorities, or do you just need reprogramming authority?
Admiral MULLEN. I think we need both. We will need authorities
for the $50 million and then reprogramming money on top of that.
Authorities. Sorry.
Mr. LARSEN. And then authorities for a decision structure as
well?
Admiral MULLEN. Right. Yeah. And support for a decision structure.
Secretary GATES. So you can influence your colleagues and the
other committee, the $50 million is the State Department contribution. The larger number is ours.
Mr. LARSEN. That was the next question. I think it is important
that both agencies have skin in the game, if you will, to make this
work, and I think probably for it to work around here, it is going
to have to look that way as well.
So I will look forward to some actual language and help from you
all on that.
The continuing resolution on the floor today and the next day includes a hit to the Department of Energys [DOE] budget on nonproliferation of about $600 million, if I am not mistaken, below the
2011 request. This is for nuclear nonproliferation. And this is the
loose nuclear materials piece, in addition to some other things,
which is something that is in our jurisdiction as well.
Can you talk about or have you looked at what the impact of that
hit will be on our ability?

33
Admiral MULLEN. No, I have not.
Mr. LARSEN. Okay. Can youwell, we only have a couple of days.
I wont ask you to get back to me in the next 2 days on that one
because we are voting, presumably tomorrow, on that one. Yeah.
Can you speak, though, to the 2012 request for the Department
of Energys nuclear nonthe nonproliferation budget request as it
applies to our jurisdiction?
Secretary GATES. To be honest, Mr. Larsen, the only part of the
energy budget that I have any familiarity with is for the NNSA
[National Nuclear Security Administration] stuff on the nuclear
weapons. I am just not familiar.
Mr. LARSEN. Well, pieces of that is in NNSA. Okay. That is fine.
Can you then finally discuss the budget request perhaps, Secretary Gates, here in the last couple of seconds, about the budget
request for the phased adaptive approach [PAA] for missile defense, supporting not only phase 1, which started implementation
this year, but what the budget request looks like for PAA on
phases 2 through 4, what kind of dollars are in there to continue
moving this along?
Secretary GATES. I cant parse the specific elements of it. I do
know that the overall budget for missile defense is going from
$10.2- to $10.7 billion. So we are putting another half a billion dollars into it. And there is money for more Aegis ships, more of the
transportable radars like we have in Egypt, like we have in Israel
and Japan right now. And then there are also continuing investments in the Ground-Based Interceptor [GBI] system. So there is
moneyas well as some of the high-level technologies like high-energy lasers and precision tracking from space. So there is a significant increase in missile defense, including being able to go forward
with the phased adaptive array defense in Europe.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Turner.
Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you. Thank you for your letter yesterday in
which you announced your support for a Federal uniform standard
of custody protection for our men and women in uniform. I get to
thank you on behalf of myself; this committee; the staff of this committee; and Eva Slusher from Kentucky, who had lost her daughter
in a custody battle as a result of a family law court judge using
her time of service against her in a custody battle that she ultimately won and got her daughter back.
I know that you know that unfortunately throughout our country, there are family law courts where the judge will use the time
away that someone has been deployed, or even the threat of deployment, as a sole factor for determining custody, resulting in our men
and women who should be being honored for their service actually
being disadvantaged for their service.
I know that you know that this House has passed this in legislation form five times, four as part of the National Defense Authorization Act and once as part of a stand-alone bill. Your letter indicates that you will be assigning your staff with the responsibility
to negotiate language that can ultimately be enacted in legislation
to provide that protection.
This is a battle that has been going on for 5 years now in legislation, and I know that you know this doesnt just affect our service

34
members who are currently in custody battlesand we are not asking for them to be advantaged; we just dont want them to be disadvantagedbut it also affects our service members who have the
stress of the concern that they may be subject to a custody battle
and dont have a national standard of which they can have confidence.
Many of these custody battles involve three States; the State in
which the original custody order was issued, the State where the
service member is currently assigned, and the State in which the
child currently lives. So the national standard is going to be so important to provide them that confidence.
So my first question to youand I have two other topics I want
to get tois I believe that this should not wait for the National Defense Authorization Act this year. This House has passed it as a
stand-alone bill. It has passed it on suspension on the House floor.
We passed it four other times as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. If we roll up our sleeves, we can get this done and
pass this very quickly through the House. I would like to have your
support for us to get to work on this right away.
Secretary GATES. We certainly will do that. Whether you can get
it through the House or not in a hurry, I guess, is up to you all.
Mr. TURNER. That would be excellent.
The second thing I want to talk to you about is the issue of sexual assault. In my district we had a woman, Maria Lauterbach,
who was tragically murdered after making allegations of sexual assault. I have worked with Jane Harman and Representative Tsongas on provisions that we have gotten enacted over the past several
years that addressed the issue of sexual assault.
A New York Times article, in reporting the lawsuit that has been
filed, identifies that the legislative accomplishments so far are
modest. We actually had in this last National Defense Authorization Act provisions that went to the issue of sexual assault, one of
which would have provided a mechanism for expedited consideration and priority for base transfers for those who have been subject to sexual assault, another providing privileged communication
between a victim and an assigned victim advocate.
All of those did not make it into the final bill. I just want to
bring them to your attention and hope that we would have DODs
support as we move to try to place those provisions in the National
Defense Authorization Act this year.
And then my third topic is NNSA. I am chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. One of the things that I have been concerned about with this continuing resolution process and then the
upcoming fiscal year 2012 budget is that NNSA, being part of
DOE, has not been recognized as really being part of the defense
infrastructure. So when people talk about cutting everything that
is non-security-related, so many times they are missed and actually
subject to a cut.
As we look to the importance of NNSA and the additional funding that they need to respond to supporting our nuclear infrastructure, I would appreciate your comments on certainly both their importance, the importance of this funding, and also the characterization that should be made that NNSA is certainly part of our na-

35
tional security infrastructure and certainly does very important defense work.
Secretary GATES. Well, I simply can endorse the last two statements. I mean, it is incredibly important, and it clearly is intimately tied to our national security and should be regarded as part
of the security component.
Secretary HALE. I would just add one point from a budgetary
standpoint. From 2013 to 2016, we actually have some money in
the defense budget, which on an annual basis will be transferred.
And in NNSA the desire was to emphasize the partnership between
our two organizations. As the Secretary said, they are very important to meeting our nuclear needs.
Mr. TURNER. Excellent. Thank you both.
Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary and Admiral Mullen. Thank you for appearing today and
providing us with your testimony as well as your service.
First, I just have one simple question. I guess it would be an upand-down answer. I want to thank you for your support of H.R. 44,
the Guam war claims bill that was introduced last Congress. This
proposed legislation is very important to the Chamorros on Guam,
who survived the brutal enemy occupation during World War II.
Although we were unsuccessful last Congress in the Senate, I have
reintroduced the compromise version of H.R. 44, which eliminates
the payment of claims to descendants of those that suffered personal injury during the occupation.
Now, can we expect the same level of support from the Department of Defense as we did in the 111th Congress? The people of
Guam, Mr. Secretary, are being asked to provide additional land
for firing ranges and the main base area for the current buildup.
And resolution of Guam war claims is going to be critical to overcoming historical injustices.
Secretary GATES. Well, as Deputy Secretary Lynn testified, we
continue to support the Department of Justice position on this.
Ms. BORDALLO. So I guess the answer would be yes.
Secretary GATES. Yes.
Ms. BORDALLO. My second question. I am encouraged to see the
administration continuing to support the so-called Guam International Agreement with military construction funding for the realignment of the Marines from Okinawa to Guam. I am also encouraged by the funding of civilian infrastructure needs in Guam.
My question is for Secretary Gates. Given the strategic importance of Guam and our Nations ongoing efforts to reshape our military presence in the Pacific theater, can you tell me what the status is of the Department of Defenses roadmap for realigning U.S.
forces in Japan? Specifically, how is the reconfiguration of Camp
Schwab facilities and the adjacent water surface areas to accommodate the Futenma replacement facility project proceeding? And
when can we expect to see tangible progress on Okinawa for a
Futenma replacement facility?
Secretary GATES. My hope iswell, I discussed this when I was
in Japan just a few weeks ago. I feel like the Japanese Government

36
is making a serious effort to resolve the Futenma issue. My hope
is that we will get resolution, particularly on the configuration of
the airfield or the runways, perhaps later this spring, and that
would then allow us to go forward with our planning.
Until we get the Futenma replacement facility issue settled, we
really are not in a position to go forward. Without resolution of
that issue, troops dont leave Okinawa; lands dont get returned to
the Japanese, to the Okinawans. So these are points that I made
both publicly and privately when I was in Tokyo.
And so my hope is that we will get resolution of this to a sufficient point by sometime later this spring, and we then can go forward and work with this committee in terms of that planning. And
just to clarify a statement that I made to Mr. Thornberry, I expect
to be around for some months to be able to work with you on that.
Ms. BORDALLO. Well, good. That is good. All right.
My third question is for either Secretary Gates or Chairman
Mullen. I was pleased to see about $200 million in research and development for a next-generation bomber, and I think this is a key
platform in maintaining a robust long-range strike capability.
Can you explain the rationale behind your decision to build a
long-range manned bomber with the ability to penetrate defended
air space? And why is stand-off insufficient to meet future combatant command requirements? What are the inherent limitations
within our existing legacy bomber fleet?
Admiral MULLEN. Actually you almost, maam, said it in your
question. We actually went through a very, very vigorous debate,
review and analysis to get to the conclusion that this should be
that we should invest in a new penetrating stealth bomber, and we
think that capability is vital for the future. We certainlythere is
great focus, obviously, on this with respect to the Pacific.
But in a lot of these capabilities that we have developed over the
years, oftentimes even the area of focus that we might use it in
changes. So we think it is actually broader than that.
And it was reviewed for both its ability to be developed from
evolving technology, so it goes toI think there is a very smart acquisition strategy associated with this. This isnt going to be exquisite in every way. It is bounded in cost and, we think, terrific
capabilities that, when combined in the platform, will actually result in a revolutionary capability, not just overall in terms of our
requirements.
Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a
couple of other questions, but I will enter them into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Conaway.
Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you gentlemen
for your service, for being here, et cetera, et cetera, adding on.
At the risk of a 15-yard penalty for piling on, I am going to go
back to the audit issue that Mr. Forbes brought up. It is not going
to happen. I mean, neither one of you gentlemenwell, actually
none of the three of you will be in place when this gets done. That
is inherent with the system that we have in place where no one
is there, and that helps explain somewhat why we are not there
is because unless it is a key component of what you want to get
done, it is not going to get done.

37
I wish we had the same kind of commitment to auditing this Department of Defenses financial statements and/oror just the
statement of receipts and disbursements that we have to greening
the military. I dont think greening the military is a core competency of the fight. But yet we all heard testimony this morning
about all the wonderful things that were done with respect to that,
and you cant tell us what the differential in cost is between doing
it that way versus what the standard way of doing it, what did it
cost us? Do we get a cost benefit for, as Mr. Reyes said, taking Fort
Bliss off the grid? We dont know what that costs and those differentials.
The story in the Washington Post that Ms. Sanchez mentioned
where folks who have defrauded the government have been awarded additional contracts for some $285 billion, that is an internal
control issue. Internal controls are an integral part of a good financial system that allows you to know where your money is going and
know where your money is not going. So every time we have these
kinds of stories, it adds to the confusion in the area.
I go home to folks in west Texas, and when they find out the Department of Defense cant be audited, they are stunned. It has been
on the books a long, long time. And, you know, Mr. Gates, your revelation that youve got thousands of auditors and 10,000 lawyers
was kind of eye-opening for those of us on this side of the deal.
I want to brag on the Marine Corps. They got very close this
yearlet me step back. Secretary Hale and I and his team and others, I have had extensive conversations with them, briefings. I have
been over to the Pentagon and talked to them. They get it. They
are working really hard, but as Petraeus said last year, hard is not
impossible. And as Keith Alexander says, nothing is impossible for
those who dont have to do it, and I am one of those who dont have
to do it, but you do. So I want to brag on the guys that are working. The Marine Corps is getting close.
But the question is, how do you leave a legacywhich everybody
wants to leave good legacieshow do you leave a legacy in place
that keeps this process moving, that you hand off, you get it so systemically ingrained into the team that this is important? We need
to know where the money is going. We need to be able to have the,
quote/unquote, Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval so that the
general public gains additional confidence in the one entity of government that the general public generally has great confidence in,
and that is in the Department of Defense. So how do you leave that
legacy in place to make sure of this, we dont lose ground because
you are not going to be responsible when 2017 rolls around and it
is not done?
Secretary GATES. Well, first of all, I think that Mr. Hale and I
have talked about this. He has asked for my support in terms of
communicating to the rest of the Department that this is a high
priority, and I have provided that support.
But to answer your question of how I know that this will continue after I am gone, that is because Mr. Hale will not be gone,
and he will continue in this, and he is committed to this, and I
think he has the plan in place, as I have mentioned earlier, both
short term and longer term, in terms of getting us to a point where
we are in compliance by 2017.

38
Mr. CONAWAY. Well, we are going to keep tracking it. I hope to
be able to get the matrix in place so that you can measure progress
against that timeline, and we can see it as well. But it also begs
the question you have got $100 billion of reprogramming money; in
effect, dollars you say your team has come together and said we
dont need to do $100 billion worth of this, we would rather do $100
billion worth of that over that timeframe. How are you going to
track that? How are you going to make sure that that $100 billion
of reprogramming doesnt morph into the $78 billionthe commitment to save the $78 billion over these next timeframes? Because
I can see very easily where you would wind up withyou fulfill the
78- number by siphoning off numbers, monies that would have otherwise been reprogrammed within the Department of Defense.
Secretary HALE. Mr. Conaway, I would like to offer a defense of
the defense financial management system that may be unpopular.
First, I am fully committed to audits. I understand we need them
for public confidence. But the fact that we cant pass commercial
audit standards does not mean we have no idea where we are
spending the money that you send us.
We have got 55,000 people in the defense community, the financial community. They are well trained, and that is one of their
prime jobs, as is the job of many others. We have several thousand
auditors watching us. And I note if we had no idea what we were
doing with the money, we would have rampant Antideficiency Act
[ADA] violations.
Over the last 5 years, about two-tenths of our budget has been
associated with ADAs. That is more than I would like, but it is
pretty small, and it is smaller, I might add, than the percentages
of the nondefense agencies, all of whom have clean audit opinions.
So I think we do know what we are doing with the money you
give us, and we can account for it. We cant pass commercial audit
standards, and we need to do that to reassure the public we are
good stewards of their money, and I am committed to doing it, and
I am working hard.
Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Courtney.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the witnesses for their testimony today.
I was at the first hearing after you were appointed Secretary. I
was a brand-new Member of Congress, remember well the fact you
walked in and announced we were going to increase end strength,
which has been referred to here this morning.
I also just would note that that was also the hearing where you
announced that we were going to make a commitment to MRAP
[Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle] deployment in Iraq and
Afghanistan, which only a handful, relatively speaking, were in
theater.
I just want to share with you that last Easter there was a Connecticut National Guard unit that was riding in an MRAP in
Laghman Province, that unfortunately a 200-pound IED was detonated. It lifted the MRAP many feet in the air, came crashing
down. Everyone survived. There were some pretty bad injuries, but
everyone is alive. There was no question that if a flat-bottom

39
Humvee had been part of that type of event, it wouldnt have been
the case.
I am friends with one of the mothers of one of those soldiers who,
you know, is a lawyer in practice in the New Haven area, and, you
know, she said to me she didnt know what an MRAP was to M&M.
But she said whoever was responsible for making sure that those
types of units were in the theater, just thank them for her. And
I am doing that publicly, and to you, too, Admiral Mullen, because
you were a part of that extraordinary effort to finally get those
things over there to protect our troops. So thank you.
I want to just touch on two quick things that people talk a little
bit about in Connecticut. The alternate engine, that was part of the
debate last night. And one of the comments that was made by Admiral Roughead last year when this issue came up was that aside
from, you know, the claims that the up-front production costs of a
second engine would pay off over time, I mean, he pointed out the
fact that on aircraft carriers, there is just no space capacity to deal
with repairing and maintaining two separate engine systems.
Obviously we have an admiral here who knows these ships quite
well. And I just wonder if you could sort of comment on the, I
think, overstated claims of savings when you think about the operational headaches that a second engine would create.
Admiral MULLEN. One of the things we do in this town is we
focus on getting stuff out the door, as opposed to what it costs for
a life cycle. And it certainly applies on aircraft carriers, but it applies actually in all three services. This is two separate lines, two
separate training, two separate maintenance manuals, two separate supply sources, all those kinds of things, and they lag each
other significantly.
I mean, I have been doing money a long time. I cannot make
sense out of this second engine. It is 2 to 3 years behind. It is not
going to compete, quite frankly.
We cannot afford to buy the second engine, I mean, from my perspective, and there have been multiple airplanes that are singleengine airplanes that are single-sourced. So I dont accept that 95
percent of the fleet is going to go down at once. It just doesnt happen. We are better than that.
You know, the first engine will be, I think, more than adequate
to meet the needs that we have for that airplane. And if I thought
any different, I would, you know, be encouraging this engine, the
second engine.
I just categorically cant see that it is going to make any difference. It is going to cost us a lot of money not just to get it out
of the door, but over the life of itsover the life cycle.
Mr. COURTNEY. And for the proponents who keep bringing up the
F16, I mean, the fact is we are in a different world than 25 years
ago as far as testing these engines, right? I mean, the risk level
is just not what it was.
Admiral MULLEN. Absolutely.
Mr. COURTNEY. I just wanted to at least get your statement on
the record on that.
Secretary GATES. It is worth noting that not only the F16 have
a single source, but also the F22or the F18, rather, have a single source, but also the F22. And the F135 engine is a derivative

40
of the F22 engine. So the likelihood of any kind of a serious design
failure is very small.
Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you.
Real quick. I have only got a minute left, but I just want to at
least note for the record again, a year ago we were talking about
a $7 billion SSBN submarine. Obviously, we were at milestone A.
We have now brought that figure down to $4.9 billion. Congratulations.
It is still, as you point out, going to be a long-term challenge for
the shipbuilding budget. Admiral Roughead makes the argument
that it should be treated as a national strategic asset, whichI see
you smiling because I think you smiled last time I asked you about
this.
But the fact is, you know, there is precedent with missile defense
for treating it outside of a normal defense budget. And I justthat
is a solution, isnt it, if we could figure out a way to make it happen?
Admiral MULLEN. It is a third of the shipbuilding budget. I
mean, if the shipbuilding budget has to absorb that, that is this
year, it would break the shipbuilding budget.
And to the Secretarys point earlier about building other capabilities, that solution that you describe has been talked about for
years. But what it boils down to is obviously resourcing this,
resourcing a shipbuilding plan which is going to get us to 313 and
beyond, and with the SSBN arrival, that is not going to happen.
So how you resource it is the question. One way to do it is literally at the national level as opposed to inside the service budget,
but it is a huge challenge just because of the money that we are
going to have to devote to it.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wittman.
Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Gates, Chairman Mullen, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for your service.
I want to begin with Chairman Mullen and follow up on my colleagues question concerning shipbuilding. As you know, if you go
back to 2006, the shipbuilding plan there said 313 ships, and we
have heard that number year after year after year. We find ourselves today with 286 ships. We find ourselves with an aging class
of Perry frigates that are going to be phasing out. We find ourselves with six Los Angeles class submarines that are 30 years or
older. We find ourselves in an environment with a very, very high
ops tempo putting ships to sea, pushing maintenance schedules,
pushing life cycle capability management elements.
My question is this: Is it anywhere in the spectrum of reality
that we will have a 313-ship Navy, and, if so, how are we going
to integrate these older ships that are coming to the end of their
service lives and making sure that we are building at a pace where
we are building more ships than what we are retiring? And as you
know now, we are at a pace where we are retiring more ships than
what we are bringing into the fleet. And I just wanted to get your
perspective on that.
Admiral MULLEN. Well, actually this budget, which is, I think, 10
ships and $15 billion is not insignificant compared to where we
were a few years ago.

41
Secondly, I have been someone that I believe we have to get
ships to their service life. That is an easy thing to say. It is hard
to do, because you have to make that investment over the course
of a ships service life, and oftentimes the Navy hasnt done that
specifically.
What gets lost in this discussion about the number of ships that
we have, and I actually, as a CNO [Chief of Naval Operations], did
the analysis that created the minimum level for the Navy of 313
ships, but it was my belief back then we were on a glide slope to
get to 220 or 230 or 240 because it was just out of control going
down because of the cost and lots of other things, the number of
ships that we were going to have to decommission. So it is not at
313, but it actually has grown, and I think we have to just keep
heading in that direction. That is key; a number of ways to do that.
So, and as the Secretary has spokenand he and I have talked
about this many timesyou know, as these wars wind down, we
are going to, I think, have to depend more and more on our Air
Force and our Navy in the world that we are living in. And so how
do we make those investments? Because what gets lost in the discussion here is their op tempo has been pretty high. And we talk
about the op tempo for the Army and the Marine Corps and the
Special Forces. That is at the top, I understand that. That is the
toughest op tempo. But if you look at the op tempo of the Air Force
and the Navy since 9/11, it is up as well. They werent sitting back
at that point in time. So we are wearing them out, and we have
to focus on those modernization programs. They provide an enormous strategic capability for us, given the world that we are living
in, and we have to invest in it as well.
Mr. WITTMAN. Are you in the position to make the commitment
to make sure that on life cycle management that you are doing everything, including the inspection programs to make sure they are
robust and the financial commitment to make sure these ships get
to the yard on time? Because as you know, any little glitch in the
schedule there really affects a sub-zero.
Is the commitment there to make sure that we are going to get
to the end of the service life of these ships to make sure that we
are getting that, or have some chance of getting to the 313?
Secretary GATES. Before the chairman answers that question,
may I say that if we end up with a yearlong continuing resolution,
those ships are not going to make it into maintenance.
Mr. WITTMAN. Okay.
Admiral MULLEN. I also, actually, just to the CR, I was struck
that you lost a DDG [guided missile destroyer] and a submarine.
We worked for years to get to two submarines a year, and literally
within a few months it falls out. You are not going to get that back
certainly in this budget. This is a really a discussion better had by
Admiral Roughead specifically.
I know the Navy has invested more in terms of its maintenance
in order to sustain or get to extended life. That said, he has also
made a decision to decommission some ships before that so that he
can invest in some of the ships that he thinks he needs for the future.
Mr. WITTMAN. Secretary, I want to follow up quickly with you.
We talk about the QDR being the issue in the National Military

42
Strategy. In their current projections, do they keep in mind where
end strength may be with your projections about reducing end
strength for both the Marine Corps and the Army in how the QDR
estimates that in National Military Strategy?
Admiral MULLEN. Yes, they do.
Mr. WITTMAN. They do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Gentlemen, we have a very strong agreement on the CR. We
have a very strong disagreement on the second engine. In my district, it doesnt matter, so I dont have a parochial interest in this,
but I do have a strong opinion.
But I would like to ask you, you both said this is your last hearing. I could probably say with great certainty that none of us, none
of the three of us, will be here in 10 years. How long are we going
to be buying the engine for the F35?
Admiral MULLEN. Oh, I would say over the course of 2 to 3 decades.
The CHAIRMAN. Okay. So 20, 30 years.
Admiral MULLEN. Right.
The CHAIRMAN. Ten years from now if we have decided on the
one engine, if, for whatever reason, the company comes to us and
says, I have to raise my costs substantially, what do you do?
Admiral MULLEN. Actually I look at itI mean, you are getting
at the competition piece, and I understand.
The CHAIRMAN. I am.
Admiral MULLEN. But as I lookand let me shift quicklyF
18Es, you get rate and you get savings by production levels. That
is how you create it.
The CHAIRMAN. Do we have a fixed cost on this, or will they,
being a sole-source engine, be able to raise their prices 10 years
out?
Admiral MULLEN. I actually think that with the kind of production line we are talking about, they will come down.
The CHAIRMAN. We hope.
Admiral MULLEN. Sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both for
your testimony and your very thorough responses to our many diverse questions.
I would like to come back again to the issue of sexual assault in
the military. It is obviously one that is much in the news today,
but really has been a long-standing issue, and I think, as Representative Turner mentioned, something that this committee has
worked hard to deal with and find a way forward. But despite that,
despiteand we have heard testimony from the various services as
to all their efforts, but despite that, in 2010, there were 3,230 reported sexual assaults in the military. But by the Pentagons own
estimate, as few as 10 percent of sexual assaults were reported.
And the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] estimates that one in
three women veterans report experiencing some form of military
sexual trauma.
I can remember several years ago meeting with some people active in the VA in the State of Massachusetts and having a gen-

43
tleman comment and say that that was one of their dominant
issues that they had to deal with.
The fiscal year 2011 Defense Authorization Act required that the
Department look into the feasibility of providing a military lawyer
to all victims of sexual assault. While this is a good first step, I was
disappointed that provisions which guarantee all victims the right
to legal counsel and protect the confidentiality of conversations between victims and victim advocates were not included in the final
version of the 2011 NDAA, though they were in the House version.
We would be shocked if conversations between their client or advocate were not privileged in the civilian world, and similar rights
must be afforded to service members who may be the victim of a
crime. Why would the Department resist such a commonsense
measure? And I ask this of Secretary Gates.
Secretary GATES. I hadnt realized the Department had resisted
it, and I must say, along with Mr. Turners comments, these things
sound to me like reasonable actions. And so I will take out of this
hearing the charge to look into whetherwhyif we opposed it,
why we opposed it, and why we should not go forward on our own,
even without legislation.
Ms. TSONGAS. And I would appreciate, once you do that, of getting back to me in some form so that I and others who felt this was
very important.
I mean, one of the things we have found is that despite all the
good efforts on the part of the services, that the follow-up procedures, legally, do not supportundermine all of the efforts you
have made around sort of preventing this in the first place, providing access to medical care. But if the follow-up legal processes
do not sufficiently protect a victim, make them feel comfortable in
coming forward, that it undermines all the good work you have
done. They become suspect of the entire process, feel very much at
risk. And this was one very commonsense way, going forward in a
legal process alone, that we felt we could better protect victims as
they try to assert their rights.
Secretary GATES. This is one of the reasons why we have invested, as I mentioned earlier, over the last couple of years almost
$2 million in training our prosecutors. We found, when I started
looking into this several years ago, that the defendants hire lawyers who are specialized in this area, and our prosecutors tended
to benot have that specialty. And it is complex law, and it is difficult to prosecute successfully, particularly if you dont have the
right training.
And so that is one of the reasons we have undertaken that. And,
as I say, we have expanded the Victim Advocate Program dramatically from about 300 to 3,000 around the world over the last few
years in every base and installation. And I will press on the question of why we cannot assure confidentiality.
Ms. TSONGAS. And the other issue we have learned, too, is as all
the services have dealt with this, each has done it in its own way
reflective of its culture and different processes. That becomes very
difficult to oversee as a Member of Congress. So in the defense authorization bill we ask for a comprehensive approach across all of
the services, and I know that the Defense Department is working
on that, and we look forward to what you come up with.

44
So thank you both.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Coffman.
Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, thank you so much for the great job that both of you
have done on behalf of our country.
Let me first thank you for standing firm on the issue about the
second engine for the F35. I just think that we have got to make
some tough decisions with limited resources, and that is certainly
one of them that I think is wasteful that I certainly support you
on.
Also, in your position on the Combined Forces Command, Joint
Forces Command, I think that its time has gone, and I certainly
support you in that effort.
But in terms of looking at theI am concerned about still the
top-heavy nature of the Department of Defense. And I noted that
right now I think we have 268 ships, if that is the proper number.
I believe it is. We have 253 admirals right now. That is almost one
admiral per ship, and I think that the Navy is authorized to go to
283 admirals.
And so can you tell me, give me some more visibility as to what
could be done to try and streamline the military?
Secretary GATES. One of the things that we have done as part
of the efficiencies efforts is we have eliminatedout of 900 flagrank officers in the military, we will eliminate 100 general officer
positions over the next couple of years, and that includes admirals.
And we also will be eliminating somewhere over 200 senior civilian
executive positions. So I was asked earlier about the $11 billion for
rebaselining OSD and the defense agencies and so on. That is
where a lot of those positions are coming from.
But we are also downgrading positions. We are not only eliminating positions, we are downgrading a number. For example, the
component commanders in Europe will be downgraded from four
stars to three stars, except for the Navy because there is a NATO
connection on that side, so that will take longer.
But we are trying to come at it both from the standpoint of is
the level of flag-rank officer for the job right, given passage of history, and can we get rid of these positions? And we have done so
on both civilian and the uniform side.
Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you.
Admiral MULLEN. Well, thank you.
If I could just briefly, and this is inside baseball, but I think it
is one of the things I told the Secretary when we started to review
this. You know, when budgets get tight, people start taking shots
at how many admirals and generals there are. That is historic.
What the Secretary led was a very thorough reviewand actually the services did thisa very thorough review of need, what
level for what job. And that will continue to go on.
There is also, at least over the course of the last 15 years for me,
all of which I have been an admiralfar beyond anything I ever
expected, believe methere is also just a growing complexity that
requires some level of senior civilian and uniformed leadership in
the world that we are living in.

45
So I am all for the reductions that make sense, but too often it
is also a very easy target. And I just would likeas we have tried
to be careful about it.
Mr. COFFMAN. Well, thank you. It is an easy target, and I certainly think it is one we are willing to take.
Let me talk about what is the Department of Defense doing in
terms of reexamining our foreign basing commitments or our forward presence in terms of whether or not it is necessary?
And let me refer, right now we have 28,500 U.S. personnel, I believe, on the Korean Peninsula in South Korea. It seems that when
the North Koreans get upset, it is when we do the major joint military exercises. And when we look at our allies across the globe,
cant we better demonstrate our support for our commitments with
them by doing periodic joint military exercises? For instance, four
brigade combat teams in Europe at this point in time, is that really
necessary?
So I am wondering if there has been an ongoing analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of redeploying those forces back to
the United States.
Secretary GATES. We have spent a lot of time on this. We have
just completed a global posture review examining our positioning
in Europe, our position in the Pacific and also in the Middle East.
It is now being discussed in the interagency because obviously
there are political implications for any changes.
But I would tell you that we have examined this very closely,
and we will probably make some adjustments. I think I mentioned
in a speech that our force structure, as well as our rank structure
in Europe, is still a legacy from the Cold War.
But that said, I am a firm believer that our forward posture in
Europe, in Asia, is fundamental to our alliance relationships. It
provides them with the assurance that, in fact, we will be there,
and we will support them, and I think dramatic changes in our
overseas posture would be very destabilizing to a lot of these relationships.
And I think that one of the reasons that, for example, South
Korea and Japan have not tried to develop nuclear weapons of
their own is because of their confidence that our presence in their
country provides a trip wire and a guarantee that if they are attacked, the United States will support them.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Ms. Pingree.
Ms. PINGREE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony today and for your service. I appreciate it. And a couple of things, I also want to tell you I appreciate your stand on the second engine, and also was glad to hear
your explanation and your thoughtful remarks about the continuing resolution. Coming from the State of Maine where people
pay a lot of attention to the construction of DDGs, we are very interested in what is going to happen there, so I appreciate your
bringing all of our attention to the importance of the challenges of
a continuing resolution.
And I also want to thank you for your remarks to Representative
Tsongas. I, too, am very concerned about some of the issues around
sexual harassment and am concerned that we havent moved far

46
enough. So I am glad you have taken her charge and think particularly, now that we have increased dependence on women in the
military, we have to be very respectful of the issues that they are
raising and the fact that it hasnt changed sufficiently to make
women comfortable at serving their country.
But my question is somewhat different. You brought this up earlier, and I want to talk about TRICARE. As you know and you stated, the U.S. Family Health Care Plan designed by Congress in
1996 provides the full TRICARE Prime benefit for military beneficiaries in 16 States and D.C. for over 115,000 beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are highly satisfied with this option.
I come from Maine, as I said. In Maine it is administered by
Martins Point Health Care, and they have a customer satisfaction
rating of 93 percent. I have visited their facility. They stress preventive care. It is exactly the model that we want for health care
in this country.
As you have already mentioned, the Presidents budget request
has a huge proposed change that would preclude enrollment in
U.S. Family Health Plan for beneficiaries who reach 65 years of
age, and if we enact that, it would immediately force over 3,000
military beneficiaries to disenroll from the plan they have chosen.
First, I think this recommendation contradicts President
Obamas position regarding health care reform, that you should be
able to keep the plan you have if you are happy with it. But perhaps a greater concern, you mentioned a cost savings. This proposal would have a cost saving for DOD, but it really just shifts
the costs to the Department of Health and Human Services. So I
dont see how overall we are anticipating a cost savings as a whole,
and I think it is going to be very detrimental to the beneficiaries.
So can you address my concerns on this?
Secretary HALE. Let me respond. First, there would be some net
savings of government because we are paying these hospitals at
significantly higher than Medicare rates. And part of the goal of
this overall effort is that we treat all the hospitals similarly in
terms of the rate paying.
I also want to clarify, yes, we wouldas people reached age 65,
they would need to join TRICARE For Life. They could stay at the
hospital where they were being treated. They wouldnt be required
to leave that; they could use that as their primary provider. But
they would need to do what every other retiree does in the Department of Defense when they reach age 65, and that is join the
TRICARE For Life program.
So we are trying to treat everybody the same. Yes, there would
be savings, modest, to the government. And you are right, there are
some costs shifted to Medicare. But there is a net savings because
we would now be paying Medicare rates, and we are paying much
higher.
I also want to work with the hospitals involved. We are not looking to reduce the quality of care. We are phasing this in very slowly. It would be everybody in the program now is grandfathered,
grandmothered. It is only as you come into the programs, so there
would be very gradual change, and our goal is to be sure these hospitals, that their care is not harmed.

47
Ms. PINGREE. So just to follow up, it is my understanding that
Public Law 104201, section 726(b), which I am sure you are well
aware of, mandates that government cannot pay more for the care
of U.S. Family Health Care Plan enrollees than it would if a beneficiary were receiving care from other government programs.
So it seems to me that we should already be paying equivalent
of what Medicare costs are. And, again, I would just stress, based
on observing my own TRICARE programand I dont have any
particular stake in itbut having been very involved in the health
care debate, knowing how important preventative care is, knowing
that there is very high customer satisfaction with that, but also it
is a different model of care, I am just greatly concerned with shifting people out of that model if it doesnt really result in cost savings and if it is only a cost shift.
I mean, for us, I know you have to look at your budget, but we
have to look at the overall costs here. And if it is just going over
to Medicare, and it is not a significant savings, and it goes back
to an old model of care, not a new preventative model of care, I
dont think we have improved care for these families.
Secretary HALE. Well, we need to get with you. I am not familiar
with the details of the provisions. I do know that there are some
requirements we are not meeting in the sole community hospitals
with regard to Medicare rates. And that may be that we are also
proposing to move toward that, toward Medicare rates. So we need
to get back to you on the details.
[The information referred to was not available at the time of
printing.]
Secretary HALE. There would be some modest net savings to the
government. We work carefully with OMB [Office of Management
and Budget], and they fully support this proposal in terms of shifting the funds.
Ms. PINGREE. Thank you. I would be happy to follow up with you
on that, so thanks.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Admiral, Mr. Secretary, sorry that I missed the last hour of testimony. I had to vote in markup.
First question is this. Mr. Secretary, Mrs. Davis, my colleague
from San Diego, when you were answering her questions, you
talked about the defense budget. You talked about the total layouts
and how this is the lowest point since the 1990s, since before World
War II, where we are at the low part where we are at now, where
there is so little being spent on defense.
And I would argue and ask your opinion of this: If you dont give
us a top line, if you dont ask for what it would cost to erase all
risk, literally, or as much risk as possible, then we have no baseline to cut defense from or to add to really, because the numbers
that we are using are limbo numbers really. Because if you were
to fully fund defensethis is my question. If you were to fully fund
defense and take away 100 percent as best as you could, 100 percent of risk, using your own threat assessment tools and analysis,
what would that funding be? What would you ask for?

48
Secretary GATES. I have only half jokingly said in meetings in
the Department that if we had a trillion dollar budget, I would still
have unfunded requirements.
Mr. HUNTER. Yes, that is right.
Secretary GATES. The services would still be able to come up
with a list of things that they really need.
I think that the budget that we have provided at $553 billion for
fiscal year 2012 mitigates risk to the extent that I think is reasonably possible, and I think that we havewe are investing in new
capabilities. The $70 billion that the services are going to be able
to invest from their savings in new capabilities or in added numbers, I think, help mitigate that risk.
You can never reach a pointjust as there is no such thing as
perfect security, there is no such thing as eliminating risk.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Secretary, if I may, I am going to run out of
time, and I have one more totally separate question. If you got to
that highest point that you could where you start getting diminished rate of return, what would that number be, roughly?
Secretary GATES. I think that we are at a point with the 553where we can do that.
Mr. HUNTER. Okay. So fully funding defense in every requirement is at 553-?
Secretary GATES. We will never fund every request
Mr. HUNTER. But if you did, sir, what I am asking is what that
number might be.
Secretary GATES. I have no idea how much it would be.
Mr. HUNTER. You havent thought about what it would cost to
really satisfy the requirements of all the different services?
Secretary GATES. Nobody lives in that world.
Mr. HUNTER. No. But what you are supposed to do is tell us how
we get to zero threat, and Congress then decides what to fund.
Secretary GATES. And I am telling you, you are never going to
get to zero threat.
Mr. HUNTER. Well, we could try.
Secretary GATES. You could spend $2 trillion, and you will never
get to zero threat.
Mr. HUNTER. But that is what we would like to hear from you,
Mr. Secretary, is that if it cost $2 trillion, and we could cut that
by 75 percent, and here we are at the 550-.
All right. On a totally separate note, let us talk about Iraq for
a minute. If the status of forces agreement is not changed, and/or
the Iraqis dont ask for our help and ask us to stay, what is our
plan for 2012? At the end of this year, what is going to happen?
Secretary GATES. We will have all of our forces out of Iraq. We
will have an Office of Security Cooperation for Iraq that will have
probably on the order of 150 to 160 Department of Defense employees and several hundred contractors who are working FMS [Foreign Military Sales] cases.
Mr. HUNTER. Do you think that that represents the correct approach for this country after the blood and treasure that we have
spent in Iraq, my own personal time of two tours in Iraq? There
is going to be fewer people there than, that 150, than there are in
Egypt right now, somewhere around 6-, 700 of those same types of
folks in Egypt.

49
How can we maintain all of these gains that we have made
through so much effort if we only have 150 people, and we dont
have any military there whatsoever? We would have more military
in Western European countries at that point than we have in Iraq,
one of the most central states, as everybody knows, in the Middle
East.
Secretary GATES. Well, I think that there is certainly, on our
part, an interest in having an additional presence, and the truth
of the matter is the Iraqis are going to have some problems that
they are going to have to deal with if we are not there in some
numbers. They will not be able to do the kind of job in intelligence
fusion, they wont be able to protect their own airspace, they will
notthey will have problems with logistics and maintenance.
But it is their country, it is a sovereign country. This is the
agreement that was signed by President Bush and the Iraqi Government, and we will abide by the agreement unless the Iraqis ask
us to have additional people there.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary and
Admiral Mullen. Thank you so very much for your forthright and
very compelling arguments.
First I want to compliment you on going green. The Navy is
doing extraordinary things, as are the other forces, and it is very,
very important for your energy programs. I hope you continue that.
I encourage you to do so, and many of us around here will do everything we can around here to support that effort.
My question, though, goes to the Afghanistan war and Pakistan,
and the question is this: Does our war in Afghanistan destabilize
Pakistan; and, if so, what should we be doing about that problem
in Pakistan?
Secretary GATES. I dont believe that the war in Afghanistan is
destabilizing to Pakistan. I think that what is destabilizing to Pakistan, among other things, is a group of terroristseveral terrorist
organizations in the western part, northwestern part of Pakistan
that are intent on destabilizing Pakistan and overthrowing its government. And I think our efforts, combined with the Pakistani efforts on both sides of the border, in fact, help reduce that terrorist
risk to the Pakistanis.
I think that extreme economic problems are a huge factor in
Pakistan. So I dont think our presence in Afghanistan is destabilizing. In fact, I think it helps the Pakistanis long term.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I will let it go at that. I am certainly not going
to place my knowledge in intelligence ahead of yours, but there
seems to be considerable others who would question that conclusion.
Admiral.
Admiral MULLEN. Sir, I would say this is not a very stable region. I mean, that is part of the problem we have. Al Qaeda lives
there, leadership lives there. They are still trying to kill as many
Americans and Western citizens as they can.
There are multiple terrorist organizationsI call it the epicenter
of terrorism in the worldthat are now working much more closely
together than they have historically.

50
So from my perspective, I try to talk about this as a region as
opposed to one country or another. They are very much integrated
in ways that sometimes they dont even like, but clearly they are.
And so I think we have to have, and we seek, you know, a strategic partnership with both these countries, really the region, to
look at long-term stability there. That is, from my perspective,
whether we are at war at the level we are at right now or in the
future when we have far fewer troops in the area, can we support
stability in a way that doesnt endanger us in the long run, in addition to the citizens of those two countries?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you. I dont want to engage in a debate
with you, so I will let it go at that and thank you for that information.
My final question has to do with missile defense, which is significantly augmented in the budget. Why?
Secretary GATES. Part of the half-billion dollar increase is to implement the phased adaptive array missile defense that we have
agreed to in Europe; but also, frankly, to increase our ability to defend our ships and our troops against theater-level threats, missile
threats.
Hezbollah alone has 40,000 rockets and missiles at this point, including anti-ship cruise missiles that have a range of 65 miles. So
we are putting more money into Aegis-capable ships. We will have
41 of these by the end of 2016, 28 by the end of 2012. They defend
our ships. They defend, have the potential to defend, our ground
troops. We are developing additional generations of the Standard
Missile-3 that have enhanced capabilities to deal with Iranian,
North Korean and other kinds of missiles. And we are making
baselinecontinuing to make baseline investments in the GroundBased Interceptor program, which protects the continental United
States.
So I think all of these are contributing to our own security, but
also help protect our allies as well.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Rigell.
Mr. RIGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Secretary Gates, Secretary Hale and Admiral
Mullen. In your chain of command, many, many levels down is my
son. And I just want you to know on behalf of the Second District
of Virginia, if it is, in fact, your last testimony before the House
Armed Services Committee, that we are just really deeply, deeply
grateful for your service. I know you have sacrificed a lot, and your
families have, to allow you to serve in the way you have. I know
that you are doing everything you can to accomplish the mission
and to protect our young people. I thank you for that.
I come from a private-sector background, and I have learned in
life that communication is extraordinarily difficult and it is absolutely essential for an organization to succeed. And I dont speak
for the committee, but just for myself. It sure seems to me that
communication between the DOD and HASC is lacking, it is poor.
I regret that I have to rate it that way.
It is acute in our own district, in the Second District of Virginia,
with respect to the disestablishment of JFCOM [Joint Forces Com-

51
mand]. Even today I have yet to receive the detailed analysis, the
supporting documents, that would help me, representing the Second District, to properly understand and respond to the disestablishment of JFCOM, and that is disappointing to me. And I trust
that we will move forward both on the House side and on the Pentagon side to improve, sharply, communication.
One area that I would like to shift to here is TRICARE, and it
is widely understood when someone enlists in the military that
health care is for life, it is free. I have asked many people, I served
in the Marine Corps Reserve myself, and just it is widely understood.
And so as tempting as it is to look at that area as an area for
cost savings, I truly believe, and I dont use these words lightly,
that it is a breach of trust to change the deal because maybe we
dont like the deal, or the government doesnt like the deal.
Mr. Chairman, Admiral Mullen, what initiative, if any, is being
undertaken to ensure or make a more full disclosure to those who
are considering a military career with respect to benefits that may
be offered at their retirement?
Admiral MULLEN. Honestly, when young people come in the military, they are 20-something, 17, 18, 19 years old. And certainly
while the material is available, and recruiters may use this as
something in terms of, you know, a health care plan, and I have
talked about it to our young people forever, I think that the military health care plan is the gold standard in the country, quite
frankly.
But it is not something, at least I have found in those on Active
Duty, they have focused heavily on, more so recently than in the
past. But it is not something they focus on when they are that
young. I didnt, and many others havent.
Mr. RIGELL. Admiral, with all due respect, my time is so short.
Secretary GATES. There is a larger point, so let me respond to
this. Congress actually settled this issue in 1995, that it wasnt free
for life. They imposed fees, and they imposed a fee of $460 a year.
So the issue of whether it was free or not was settled by Congress
in 1995.
Once you have acknowledged that there is going to be a fee, the
notion that the fee would never change is certainly nowhere in the
legislation.
Mr. RIGELL. Well, Mr. Secretary, my question was what initiative, if any, was undertaken to ensure a full disclosure of those who
are entering the service? I believe in full disclosure; I know we all
do. And I am submitting to you today that, in countless conversations with our veterans, that there is a disconnect between what
is being told by the recruiter and what reality is. And I just respectfully, as one American to another, am asking that that be addressed within the commands. It is not an expensive initiative. It
would just be to ensure better disclosure.
You know, as we lookand I will close with this. As we look at
the profound challenges that are facing our military that you have
discussed today and the shortage of funds for ship repair, for shipbuilding, the reduction in end strength, troop levels, it is just stunning to meand, I think, a misplaced prioritythat we are still
talking about sending a carrier to Mayport, which is a risk that is

52
minimal and could be mitigated with far less funds than it takes
to move that carrier to Mayport. And I would ask you to reconsider
that, respectfully.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Hanabusa.
Mrs. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you, Admiral, for being
here.
I have a basic question regarding the budget. I read, I thought
I read it correctly in the budget documents from the President, that
the total amount of outlay was about $700 billion. And I do know
that 553- is the base budget, and Mr. Secretary has said that. And
the Overseas Contingency Operation budget of about 117-, plus or
minus, I think, is not included in the base, if I am reading that correctly. But I am still short about $30 billion. So do you know where
that $30 billion is?
Secretary HALE. I need to get with you and see where the numbers are. There are various ways of adding up the budgets. The figures we are discussing here are 051. You could be including the
National Nuclear Security Administration figures in there, which is
something called function 050.
I dont know if we want to take a lot of time here, but I would
be glad to get with you, and we will sort out the numbers for you.
Mrs. HANABUSA. Please do. But the 553- and the 117- is correct,
though. We are not just really talking about 553
Secretary HALE. Yes. That is the DOD portion of the budget. But
as I say, there are various ways of adding this up.
Mrs. HANABUSA. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, Congresswoman Bordallo has left, but I am also
very curious about the position with Okinawa. And I have read
what was given to us beginning on page 15 and continuing on to
page 16.
There seems to not be a firm statement about what Japans position is, and I think one of the things that is pointed out is that the
$472 million for Guam was not included in, I guess, the Japanese
budget.
So how critical is their contribution to what happens? And I kind
of would like to know, as best as I can, what is the bottom line?
Are they going to move from Okinawa? Are they not going to move?
It looks like a reduction of about 10,000 troops from Okinawa. So
what do we plan to do?
Secretary GATES. First of all, the Japanese actually have fulfilled
all their commitments to date. They have given us, I think, a little
over $700 million for infrastructure. When I was there, they told
me they were putting together a program that will include something on the same order of further infrastructure investments.
And as I mentioned earlier, we really cant go forward on Guam.
In fact, the Congress has withheld money for going forward on
Guam until we have greater clarity on what happens on Okinawa.
My hope is, based on my conversations in Japan, that we will
have some resolution of this by later this spring or early this summer, and then we will be able to come to you with our plans. But
absentabsent resolution of the Futenma replacement facility
issue, our troops arent coming out of Okinawa, land is not being

53
returned to the Okinawans, and we have to sort of start all over
again.
But I do believe we will find some positive resolution to the
Futenma issue.
Mrs. HANABUSA. So when you say the Futenma issue and the
resolution of where the troops are going to go, are you talking
about within Okinawa itself or some variation of Okinawa and
Guam?
Secretary GATES. On Okinawa itself.
Mrs. HANABUSA. On Okinawa itself?
And finally, this whole concept of end strength, I want to know
whether that is some kind of a magical number into the future, to
a time specific, or is that something that we are looking at given
the information that we have today?
Secretary GATES. It is basically looking at the information that
we have today.
And, as I have said, the end strength in 2015 and 2016 will, at
the end of the day, be determined by the conditions in the world
and, above all, have we come out of Afghanistan, by and large, by
the end of 2014. That would enable us to have a lower end
strength.
Now, as we have talked about in this hearing, the Marine Corps
believes that it needs to come down about 15,000 because they
think they have gotten too big and too heavy in terms of their
equipment. So this is a proposal that actually is divorced from the
budget and is more based on the Marine Corps own view of their
force structure and what they need to complete their mission going
forward.
Mrs. HANABUSA. And how about the other services? Do they
share
Secretary GATES. The only other service affected at this point is
the Army. And, again, depending on the circumstances, the Army
leadership supports this proposal, but the Army leadership is also
fully aware that they will have the opportunity to revisit this decision if conditions in the world change.
Mrs. HANABUSA. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. We have one, two, three, four, five Members that
have been waiting patiently now for 3 hours, and we just got the
first series of votes called, and I am concerned that they will go for
45 minutes or an hour. And I know, Mr. Secretary, you said that
you had until 1:30. I appreciate that you have given us that time,
but I think we only have time probably for one more.
Mr. Gibson.
Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, Chairman, and I thank the distinguished panelists for their leadership and for being here today.
And I also want to express my admiration for all the men and
women that you lead and for their families on what they do on behalf of our freedom.
I also would like to express my appreciation for the budget submission, not easy work, and I have some experience in it, and I
know it has been challenging for the team, especially in relation to
the last decade with regard to prioritization. I look forward to
being supportive going forward.

54
My concern has been touched on here today, but I would like to
address it more directly, and it has to do with, generally, requirements and resources, but, more broadly, with the prefacing discussion of what kind of country we are, what interests we have, or
what commitments we think are appropriate for a republic.
You know, I think on this committee there would be wide agreement and beyond that we need to protect our cherished way of life,
and that we need the worlds best military to do that, but I think
there is a wide variety of views and opinions as to precisely what
that means. Some believe that we should embrace some kind of isolationism; others, perhaps, a near endless global commitment strategy.
I reject the extremes of both sides. I personally think that we are
overcommitted and that we ask too much of our military, but it is
a debatable point. Which gets to my point. We have processes,
NDP, the QDR, primarily for internal or D.C. consumption, when
I think it really needs to be more of a national conversation.
I know you both travel widely and you speak. I am curious to
know, does this topic come up when you are with the American
people, and what ideas that you have, if you agree, that this should
be more of a national discussion going forward?
Admiral MULLEN. Well, I have traveled fairly extensively over
the course of the last year, and I have found, and I worry about,
the sort of growing disconnect between the American people and
the military. And I dont mean thatI mean, they are enormously
supportive of our men and women and their families. They know
we are in two wars. They know we are sacrificing enormously as
well.
More and more, we come from 40 percent fewer places. I mean,
we are 40 percent smaller than we were in 1989. We have BRACed
[Base Realignment and Closure] out of many parts of the country.
And so our day-to-day connections are significantly reduced from
what they used to be. And it is the breadth and the depth of understanding of who we are and what we are doing, the number of deployments, sacrifices of the family, the changes that have occurred
over the course of the last decade.
So it is not going to happen overnight, but it is a long-term concern that I have. And particularly when you overlay that with the
enormous fiscal challenges that the country has right now, it is one
of the reasons I have talked aboutI actually do think the debt is
a huge issue for national security, because we are going to be affected by that. You can see it in this budget. It is going to continue
to happen.
So that is probably the worry, and having a conversation with
America about those challenges, and particularly individuals who
serve, then go on to return to communities throughout the country,
the veterans issues. I mean, we see an increasing homeless population in our veterans, increasing number of female homeless veterans, for example. How do they return toyou pick the area. They
are enormously capable people. They are wired to serve in the future. They will make a big difference. They are 20-something. But
how do we invest just a little bit in them so that, taking advantage
of the GI bill, they will then take off and make a huge difference

55
in the future? And I think they will. That connection is something
that I think is really important.
Secretary GATES. But at the end of the day, Mr. Gibson, from our
perspective, the dialogue, the conversation that you are describing
is a dialogue that needs to take place between the executive branch
and the legislative branch. You represent the American people. You
have your finger on the pulse of the people in your district better
than any of us ever could. And so, as was intended by the Founders, we basically rely on you as the surrogates for the American
people in terms of that dialogue.
Mr. GIBSON. I appreciate the comments, and I do believe that it
is an area that we are going to need to address. And I look forward
to working with the DOD and also the chairman and the committee
moving forward.
And I yield back.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, Admiral, thank you again for being here, for your
service. And this committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X
FEBRUARY 16, 2011

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

FEBRUARY 16, 2011

(61)

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

FEBRUARY 16, 2011

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON

The CHAIRMAN. On January 6th you stated that this budget request, Represents,
in my view, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary given the complex and unpredictable array of security challenges the United States faces around
the globe. You went on to explain why further cuts to force structure would be calamitous.
However, last year you indicated that given topline real growth of approximately
1%, force structure and modernization accounts need to grow by 23% beyond 2015
to prevent cuts to force structure. The budget request before us does not achieve
that level of topline growth.
How will you maintain the level of modernization you believe is necessary to
protect our national security?
Does this budget request guarantee cuts to force structure beyond 2015, as you
predicted might happen?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
The CHAIRMAN. What was the 2016 end strength for the Army and the Marine
Corps presumed by the QDR and during development of the national military strategy?
Going forward, what specific metrics will the Department use to evaluate the
decision to reduce Army and Marine Corps end strength?
How will this reduction in end strength affect the objective of 1:3 dwell time
for the active force?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH
Mr. SMITH. The US Family Health Plan designed by Congress in 1996 provides
the full TRICARE Prime benefit for military beneficiaries in 16 states and the District of Columbia for over 115 thousand beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are highly satisfied with this health care option. In fact, the Committee understands that in 2010
over 91% of US Family Health Plan beneficiaries were highly satisfied with the care
they received, making it the highest rated health care plan in the military health
system.
The FY 12 Presidents Budget Request includes a proposed legislative provision
that future enrollees in US Family Health Plan would not remain in the plan
upon reaching age 65. Do you realize that this proposal would eliminate access
for our beneficiaries who are elderly and in the most need of health care from
the highest rated health care plan in the military?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. SMITH. Public Law 104201 Sec 726(b)) mandates the Government cannot pay
more for the care of a US Family Health Plan enrollee than it would if that beneficiary were receiving care from other government programs. Is DOD in compliance
with that provision? If you are not in compliance with the law or disagree with the
above, please explain. Is the proposal simply to shift cost to Medicare?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. SMITH. The US Family Health Plan provides prevention and wellness programs as well as effective disease and care management programs designed to care
for beneficiaries health care needs over their lifespan. Given the longitudinal approach of the program in managing the health care needs of the US Family Health
Plan beneficiaries, and the Departments interest in the medical home model, why
would you not consider expanding such innovative techniques in health care delivery?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. SMITH. The proposed legislation, if enacted, would force future enrollees to
disenroll from this effective and well managed program upon reaching age 65. The
remaining beneficiaries would be at risk because the ability to sustain disease management and prevention programs would be compromised, effectively removing the
option of continued participation in this plan. Is this consistent with the DODs stat(99)

100
ed priorities of population health, improved health management and continuity of
care?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH ON BEHALF OF MS. GIFFORDS
Mr. SMITH. DOD Operational Energy Strategy
As a follow-up to the 29 Sept 2010 letter (attached) issued by the Committee
(to Sec Gates) last year, how is the Department achieving efficiencies in Operational Energy, saving lives and taxpayer dollars by saving fuel?
In his 1 Nov 2010 response (attached) Secretary Gates stated he would be releasing the Department of Defenses Operational Energy Strategy. What is the
status of this report and anticipated date of release?
Secretary GATES and Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the
time of printing.]
Mr. SMITH. Operational Renewable Electricity
Following the impressive success of the USMCs Afghanistan Experimental Forward Operating Base (ExFOB), what steps is the Department taking to increase
the use of renewable energy sources in the battlefield?
How much does the ExFOB cost?
What advantage do portable renewable energy sources add to mission effectiveness?
Is the rest of the expeditionary force doing something similar?
What are the barriers to successful wide-spread deployment of ExFOB-like technologies?
What is the strategy, cost, and timeline of such a deployment?
Secretary GATES and Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the
time of printing.]
Mr. SMITH. Renewable Electricity Goals
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007 directed DOD to
produce or procure 25% of all electricity consumed by the Department from renewable energy sources by 2025. What is the Departments strategy for achieving this goal? What impediments does the Department foresee to achieving this
goal?
Secretary GATES and Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the
time of printing.]
Mr. SMITH. Energy Research and Development
What is the Department of Defenses energy investment strategy for R&D? Specifically:
o implementing high efficiency drive technologies, such as hybrid drive, into
tactical vehicles;
o increasing the energy efficiency of facilities in garrison and in theater; and
o developing alternative fuels.
How does the Department coordinate R&D efforts between each of the Services,
DOD agencies such as DARPA, and independent Service research labs such as
the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force Research Lab? And, how do they
coordinate investments with DOE to avoid duplicationparticularly under the
auspices of the DOD/DOE MOU?
Secretary GATES and Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the
time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BARTLETT
Mr. BARTLETT. After your appearance before the committee, your public affairs office sent the following email on February 16, regarding the subject of the undated,
unsigned, and unsolicited documents on the subject of the JSF alternate engine sent
by your legislative affairs office to select Members of Congress on February 14 and
15: The Department, through its office of Legislative Affairs, routinely provides papers to members of Congress and their staffs, to inform them of the Departments
position on important issues. Because of the nature of those documents (fact sheets
and information papers), they are not normally signed or dated. While the Secretary
may not be aware of these routine communications, the documents themselves represent the Secretarys and Departments position. His, and our, opposition to the F
35 extra engine is well-known and a matter of record. These documents are not inconsistent with our previous public statements.
Please provide the committee a list of all unsolicited, undated and unsigned
background or information papers provided by your Department to select mem-

101
bers of Congress during 2010 and 2011. Please provide the subject matter, the
approximate date, and the members names, and to whom the information papers were sent.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. BARTLETT. In your testimony, in responding to a question regarding the F
35 alternate engine, you made a statement that the F18 and F22 engines come
from a single source. Also, a Department of Defense (DoD) information paper provided to select members of Congress the day before the House of Representatives
voted on an amendment to strike funding for the F35 competitive engine stated:
A single engine is not a new approach and does not create unacceptable levels of
risk. The Department maintains two current tactical aircraft programs, the F22
and the F/A18/F, which both utilize a single engine provider.
The F22 and F/A18 are twin engine aircraft. The F35 is a single engine aircraft. As you are aware, there are significant differences in design and operational
requirements for engines intended to power single engine aircraft from those that
are designed to power multi-engine aircraft. We understand that engines designed
to power single engine aircraft require component and software redundancies; increased component reliability; higher production quality standards; and larger air
start envelope requirements.
Also, as we understand it, only two U.S. military operational aircraft are single
engine aircraft: the Air Force F16 and the Marine Corps AV8B. The F16 was
the first aircraft to use an alternate engine, beginning in the mid-80s and still does
so today. According to DOD information, accident rates for the F16 have trended
from 14 mishaps/100,000 flight hours in 1980 with the Pratt & Whitney engine,
when the alternate engine program was first funded, to less than 2 mishaps/100,000
flight hours in 2009 for both the Pratt & Whitney and GE engines. A review of DOD
AV8B accident data last year by the committee indicated an accident rate (FY 05
09) six times that of the other Navy fighter aircraft (F18) and over 3 and 12 times
the rate of the F16 (FY 0408). The AV8B will be replaced by the F35B. It will
not be operational until at least 2016. The Institutes for Defense Analysis estimated
in 2007 that up to 95 percent of the U.S. fighter fleet could be composed of F35
aircraft by 2035.
No fighter aircraft engine has ever been required to do what the F35 engine is
required to doprovide powered flight and also power a lift fan for the short takeoff
and vertical landing F35B. You have indicated that you have placed the F35B on
probation, requiring redesign of the F35B unique engine components. The current estimate to complete development of the F135 primary engine has been extended several years and the estimated cost to complete the development program
is 450 percent above the February 2008 estimated completion cost. Five months into
fiscal year 2011, the fiscal year 2010 engine contract has yet to be signed. The F
35 primary engine has, as of the end of 2010, 680 total flight test hours and has
90 percent of its flight testing to go.
What were the planned initial operational capability dates for the F35A, B,
and C when you testified before our committee last year? What were the
planned initial operational capability dates for the F35A, B, and C as of July
2010? What are the current planned initial operational capability dates for the
F35A, B, and C?
Do you believe your testimony and the DOD information paper provide a balanced representation of the risks in programs costs as well as operational risks
to DOD of dependence on a single engine source for the F35 aircraft for up
to 95 percent of the future U.S. fighter fleet?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. BARTLETT. In your testimony, in responding to a question regarding the F
35 F135 alternate engine, you made a point that the F35 primary engine is a derivative of the F22 F119 engine.
We understand the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) for the F
35 F135 engine was to have been completed in FY 08 and still has several years
to go to complete development. We also understand SDD for the F135 primary engine is now 70 percent over the original 2001 estimated cost, been slipped several
years, and is 450 percent over the estimated cost to complete since the FY10-to complete estimate of February of 2008.
When the F119/F135 engine entered Systems Development and Demonstration
(SDD) were any of the ground or flight test requirements waived because the
F135 is a derivative of the F22 engine?
Dr. Carter directed an Integrated Manufacturing Readiness Review of the F135
contractor in 2009 because of concerns over escalating costs and parts production productivity. If the F135 is a derivative of the F119 why do you believe
the review team discovered several of the major components for the F135 with

102
manufacturing readiness levels of 3 and 4, when low rate initial production of
the engine had begun in fiscal year 2007?
If the F135 is a derivative of the F22 engine, why do you believe the completion of testing has been delayed and costs have continued to increase for development?
What was the planned development time period for the F135? How long has the
F135 been in development and how many more years of development are required?
What was the original estimate for the cost of F135 development and what is
the current FY12 to-complete, development?
Is the Department able to segment planned and actual development costs for
the F135 and those solely associated with the lift fan and associated components? If so, please provide that information to the committee.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. BARTLETT. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 17, 2011, you were quoted as stating: The Air Force version flew twice as
many flight tests as had been originally planned.
My understanding from DOD sources is that the F35A flew 171 flights in 2010
versus a planned 112 flights, 53 percent more than planned, not 100 percent more
than planned, as you are quoted as saying.
Could you provide the committee the correct information on the issue of
planned versus actual flight tests sorties flown by the F35A test aircraft in
2010?
Under the FY 2007 F35 flight test schedule, when DOD requested funds to initiate F35 production, how many flights should have been flown from the beginning of the F35 test program through December 2010 and what were the actual number of flight tests flown (please show AA1 separately)?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. BARTLETT. A Department of Defense (DoD) information paper provided to select members of Congress the day before the House of Representatives voted on an
amendment to strike funding for the F35 competitive engine stated: . . . the F136
engine is already three to four behind in its development phase.
The last information provided to the committee, in April 2010, indicated the F136
engine was two to three months behind its originally planned development schedule,
not three to four years.
We understand the original acquisition strategy for the F35 engine was to award
two separate sole source engine contracts, four years apart, using a leader-follower
acquisition strategy, the first contract being awarded to P&W for the F135 in 2001;
the second contract being awarded to GE for the F136 in 2005, 46 months apart.
The November 8, 2000 DOD F35 acquisition strategy stated: The contract strategy for the JSF119 [now F135] propulsion system entails a single, sole source contract to P&W. P&W will complete propulsion system development in FY08. JSF Acquisition Strategy, 8 November 2000. The acquisition strategy document also stated:
The contract strategy for the alternate JSF F120 [now F136] propulsion system entails awarding a single, sole source contract . . . in FY 05 . . . JSF Acquisition
Strategy, 8 November 2000. Finally the acquisition strategy stated: This competitive engine environment will ensure long-term industrial base support with two production lines and will keep JSF engine costs down and reliability up.
An April 12, 2010, response to question for the record, March 24, 2010, Hearing
before the Air and Land Forces and Seapower subcommittees of the House Committee on Armed Services stated: The original F135 contract signed 26 October
2001 had an initial service release set for November 2007. That objective was met
24 months late: The current F135 program has achieved conventional takeoff and
landing ISR the 1st quarter FY2010 [OctoberDecember 2009] and short takeoff and
vertical landing ISR is planned for 4th quarter FY2010 . . . The F136 is 23
months behind schedule to the original plan.
The current estimate to complete development of the F135 primary engine has
been extended several years and the estimated cost to complete the development
program is 450 percent above the February 2008 estimated completion cost.
Five months into fiscal year 2011, the fiscal year 2010 engine contract has yet
to be signed.
The F35 primary engine has, as of the end of 2010, 680 total flight test hours
and has 90 percent of its flight testing to go.
What has been the level of funding obligated, including other government costs,
for the F136 development from FY 07 to date, by fiscal year, and what was the level
of funding determined by the F35 Joint Program Office as being required, including other government costs, by fiscal year, to maintain the F136 development schedule.

103
Do you believe the DOD information paper provides a balanced representation
of the F35 acquisition strategy and F136 and F135 development schedules?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. BARTLETT. A Department of Defense (DoD) information paper provided to select members of Congress two days before the House of Representatives voted on
an amendment to strike funding for the F35 competitive engine stated: A 2010
update of the 2007 cost benefit analysis concluded, through very optimistic assumptions, that the second engine is currently at the breakeven point in net present
value.
In testimony before the Air and Land Forces and Seapower Subcommittees of the
House Committee on Armed Services on March 24, 2010, the Honorable Christine
Fox, Director of the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office [CAPE], Office
of the Secretary of Defense, was asked by Representative Jim Marshall regarding
her testimony that the DOD 2007 cost benefit analysis on the F35 engine program
used optimistic assumptions: So back in 2007, were you trying to prove a case
or were you just trying to do a study? Ms. Fox responded: We were trying to do
a study, sir. In addition, the 2007 DOD engine cost benefit analysis cites six
sources that it indicates were methodologically consistent with the 2007 DOD study,
including RAND, the Institute for Defense Analysis, The Analytical Services Corporation, and the Defense Systems Management College.
The GAO has noted that key assumptions in the Pentagons estimate of the $2.9
billion six year cost to complete the F136 competitive engine and prepare for competition were unnecessarily pessimistic based on historic experience with the original alternate engine program. Those assumptions were (1) 4 years of noncompetitive procurements of both engines would be needed to allow the alternate engine
contractor sufficient time to gain production experience and complete developmental
qualification of the engine, and (2) the government would need to fund quality and
reliability improvements for engine components. Past studies and historical data we
examined indicate that it may take less than 4 years of noncompetitive procurements and that competition may obviate the need for the government to fund component improvement programs. If these conditions hold true for the alternate engine, the funding projection for the alternate engine could be lower than DODs projection.
Do you believe the DOD information paper provides a balanced representation
of the F35 engine acquisition strategy and F136 and F135 development schedules?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. BARTLETT. In your testimony, in responding to a question regarding the F
35 alternate engine, you stated the F35 alternate engine is two to three years behind [the primary engine].
The last information provided to the committee by DOD, in April 2010, indicated
the F136 engine was two-to-three months behind its originally planned development
schedule, not two to three years behind.
We understand that the original acquisition strategy for the F35 engine was to
award two separate sole source engine contracts, four years apart, using a leaderfollower acquisition strategy, the first contract being awarded to P&W for the F135
in 2001; the second contract being awarded to GE for the F136 in 2005, 46 months
apart.
The November 8, 2000 DOD F35 acquisition strategy stated: The contract strategy for the JSF119 [now F135] propulsion system entails a single, sole source contract to P&W. P&W will complete propulsion system development in FY08. JSF Acquisition Strategy, 8 November 2000. The acquisition strategy document also stated:
The contract strategy for the alternate JSF F120 [now F136] propulsion system entails awarding a single, sole source contract . . . in FY 05 . . . JSF Acquisition
Strategy, 8 November 2000. Finally, the acquisition strategy stated: This competitive engine environment will ensure long-term industrial base support with two production lines and will keep JSF engine costs down and reliability up.
An April 12, 2010, response to question for the record, March 24, 2010, Hearing
before the Air and Land Forces and Seapower subcommittees of the House Committee on Armed Services stated: The original F135 contract signed 26 October
2001 had an initial service release set for November 2007. That objective was met
24 months late: The current F135 program has achieved conventional takeoff and
landing ISR the 1st quarter FY2010 [OctoberDecember 2009] and short takeoff and
vertical landing ISR is planned for 4th quarter FY2010 . . . The F136 is 23
months behind schedule to the original plan.
The current estimate to complete development of the F135 primary engine has
been extended several years and the estimated cost to complete the development
program is 450 percent above the February 2008 estimated completion cost.

104
Five months into fiscal year 2011, the fiscal year 2010 engine contract has yet
to be signed.
The F35 primary engine has, as of the end of 2010, 680 total flight test hours
and has 90 percent of its flight testing to go.
What has been the level of funding obligated, including other government costs,
for the F136 development from FY 07 to date, by fiscal year, and what was the level
of funding determined by the F35 Joint Program Office as to be required, including
other government costs, to maintain the F136 development schedule.
Do you believe your testimony before the committee provided a balanced representation of the F35 engine acquisition strategy and F136 and F135 development schedules?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. BARTLETT. In responding to the question on the F35 alternate engine, you
said there have been multiple airplanes that are single-engine airplanes that are
single source.
The F22 and F/A18 are twin engine aircraft. The F35 is a single engine aircraft. We understand that only two U.S. military operational aircraft are single engine aircraft: the Air Force F16 and the Marine Corps AV8B. The F16 was the
first aircraft to use an alternate engine, beginning in the mid-80s and still does so
today. DOD information indicates accident rates have trended from 14 mishaps/
100,000 flight hours in 1980 with the Pratt & Whitney engine, when the alternate
engine program was first funded, to less than 2 mishaps/100,000 flight hours in
2009 for both the Pratt & Whitney and GE engines. A review of the AV8B DOD
accident data last year indicated an accident rate (FY 0509) six times that of the
other Navy fighter aircraft (F18) and over 3 and 12 times the rate of the F16 (FY
0408). The AV8B will be replaced by the F35B. The F35 is a single engine aircraft. It will not be operational until at least 2016. The Institutes for Defense Analysis estimated in 2007 that up to 95 percent of the U.S. fighter fleet could be composed of F35 aircraft by 2035.
No fighter aircraft engine has ever been required to do what the F35 engine is
required to doprovide powered flight and also power a lift fan for the short takeoff
and vertical landing F35B. Secretary Gates placed the F35B on probation, requiring redesign of the F35B unique engine components. The current estimate to
complete development of the F135 primary engine has been extended several years
and the estimated cost to complete the development program is 450 percent above
the February 2008 estimated completion cost. Five months into fiscal year 2011, the
fiscal year 2010 engine contract has yet to be signed. The F35 primary engine has,
as of the end of 2010, 680 total flight test hours and has 90 percent of its flight
testing to go.
Do you believe your testimony provides a balanced representation of the risks
in programs costs as well as operational risks to DOD of dependence on a single
engine source for the F35 for up to 95 percent of the future U.S. fighter fleet?
How many single engine fighter aircraft, by type and quantity, are there in the
U.S. inventory at present and what percent of the primary active and total active inventory do they represent of the total fighter force?
Please provide the major/Class A accident rates for these aircraft for the past
five and ten years through FY 10 or CY2010. Also, please provide the major/
Class A accident rates for these aircraft for the past five and ten years, with
the primary cause being the engine, through FY/CY 10. Finally, please provide
what the experience has been with the DOD single engine aircraft with regard
to groundings related to the engine of more than one aircraft at a time?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO

Ms. BORDALLO. I have re-introduced the compromise version of H.R. 44 which
eliminates the payment of claims to descendants of those that suffered personal injury during the occupation. Can we expect the same level of support from the Department of Defense as we did in the 111th Congress? The people of Guam are
being asked to provide additional land for a firing range and the main base area
and resolution of Guam war claims is going to be critical to overcoming historical
injustices.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. BORDALLO. U.S. Force Realignment in Japan
Given the strategic importance of Guam and our nations on-going efforts to reshape our military presence in the Pacific theater, can you tell me what the sta-

105
tus is of the Department of Defenses roadmap for realigning U.S. forces in
Japan?
Specifically, how is the reconfiguration of the Camp Schwab facilities and the
adjacent water surface areas to accommodate the Futenma Replacement Facility project proceeding?
When can we expect to see tangible progress on Okinawa for a Futenma Replacement Facility?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. BORDALLO. I was pleased to see about $200 million in research and development for a next generation bomber. I think this is a key platform to maintaining
a robust long range strike capability.
Can you explain the rationale behind your decision to build a long range
manned bomber with the ability to penetrate defended air space?
Why is standoff insufficient to meet future Combatant Command requirements?
What are the inherent limitations within our existing legacy bomber fleet?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. BORDALLO. Army & Marine Corps Equipment Reset
Please put the Fiscal Year 2012 budget request for equipment reset for the
Army and Marine Corps in context with the Fiscal Year 2011 Presidents budget
request and the continuing resolution being discussed today, or if the Department were forced to continue with a year-long Continuing Resolution at Fiscal
Year 2010 funding levels.
Please discuss the movement of depot maintenance funding from Overseas Contingency Operations to the base budget.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. BORDALLO. What guidance were the services given to distinguish between
base and OCO budget reset?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. BORDALLO. Given the high level of attention the CENTCOM theater continues
to receive due to on-going combat operations, I am concerned that we may have inadvertently created unnecessary risk in our Pacific Theater readiness, capabilities,
and particularly in our ISR capacity because of a CENTCOM focus.
Given the number of threats in the Pacific area of operations what are we doing
to address these risks?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLER
Mr. MILLER. Affordable F35 recapitalization is dependent on capturing economies
of commonality and scale as quickly as possible. Yet, basic economics tells us that
if you continue to reduce the number of aircraft, unit costs will grow. This does concern me.
What actions will the Department take to help ensure that this critical 5th generation aircraft does not quickly become another B2 or F22?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. MILLER. You expressed the Departments support for an amphibious assault
capability for the Marine Corps, and suggested that a plan exists to fill that capability gap; however, we have been asked to cancel the EFV without seeing a detailed
plan for replacing the 40+ year old AAV. The Marine Personnel Carrier does not
offer a ship-to-shore capability, and the obsolete AAV is incapable of providing the
swift, over the horizon delivery needed to conduct amphibious operations in the face
of modern threats.
When will we see a detailed plan for an AAV replacement?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HEINRICH
Mr. HEINRICH. I was pleased to see the FY12 budget reflect the Administrations
commitment to modernizing the nuclear weapon infrastructure.
The $1.2 billion increase over FY10 will make the necessary investments to ensure our laboratories have the resources they need to maintain our nuclear deterrent while helping secure loose nuclear material around the world.
This is in stark contrast to the Continuing Resolution which includes a $325M
cut to weapons activities and a $647M cut to nuclear nonproliferation.
How would the funding levels included in the CR impact NNSAs modernization
plans and our ability to meet our obligations under the New START Treaty?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

106
Mr. HEINRICH. I also have serious concerns about how the CR will impact civilian
assistance on the ground in Afghanistan.
The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development would
face over a 20 percent reduction when compared to the Presidents FY11 request.
How would the funding levels in the CR impact the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan where our civilians are working side by side with our military?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON
Mr. WILSON. Your proposal includes several measures aimed at reducing the cost
of providing health care to our service members and their families and military retirees. While I appreciate that your plan is a more comprehensive approach than
previous cost cutting efforts, the challenge here is finding the balance between fiscal
responsibility while maintaining a viable and robust military health system. We
must be sure to remember these proposals have complex implications and go beyond
beneficiaries. They also will affect the people such as pharmacists, hospital employees and vendors who support the defense health system. The military health system
has a robust acquisition workforce within the TRICARE Management Activity that
appears to replicate the acquisition expertise in other Defense agencies such as the
Defense Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and Defense Logistic Agencies.
Why does the military health system need its own acquisition workforce?
How much money would you save by embedding medical expertise in existing
Defense acquisition agencies?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. RUPPERSBERGER
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Regarding the cancellation of the F22, given the recent
Chinese developments, please discuss the recent developments in 5th generation
technologies and the need to invest in 5th gen aircraft.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. F35 is slated to ramp up production to over 20 aircraft a
month. Given that the Independent Manufacturing Review Team you chartered
came to the conclusions that the industry team is currently capable of producing between 48 and 60 aircraft per year and that a production ramp up of 1.5X per year
is optimum, please discuss the decision to produce only approximately 32 aircraft
for three straight years?
Does this achieve production efficiency?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TURNER
Mr. TURNER. Though the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) falls
under the Department of Energy and its largely non-security budget, can you please
discuss NNSAs role in meeting our nations national security needs?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. In your preface to the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, you
asked for nearly $5 billion to be transferred from the Department of Defense to the
Department of Energy over the next several years. Can you discuss why this was
necessary and how you prioritize this investment?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. As stated in the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, President
Obama has directed a review of potential future reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons below New START levels.
Have you received such direction?
What conditions would the Department of Defense need to see met in order to
consider further reductions beyond New START levels?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. When the White House announced the Phased Adaptive Approach
(PAA) to missile defense in Europe last September, it said the new approach was
based upon an assumption that the long-range missile threat was slower to develop. However, in comments last month, you both expressed concern about the
pace of North Koreas ICBM and nuclear developments.
Do you have a similar assessment of Irans missile and nuclear programs?

107
Also, as discussed in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, what hedging strategy will you pursue to defend the U.S. homeland in case the threat comes earlier or the new Next Generation Aegis Missile has technical problems?
At what point would the Department make a decision to employ the hedge?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. In 2006, the Director of National Intelligence issued a five-year strategic human capital plan that pointed to a number of gaps in mission-critical areas
of analysis and human intelligence. Among the recommendations, the report called
on looking at the needs of the total forceincluding civilians, military members,
contractors, and international and academic partners.
What is the Defense Department doing to meet the growing demands for
trained military, civilian, and contractor workers who perform intelligence analysis?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. Research and development, testing, and training for Unmanned Aerial Systems to meet national defense needs have been hampered for many years by
lack of special use airspace. Of course, the safety of our airspace is paramount. But
there is a growing feeling that national defense needs are being compromised by
this impasse.
What is the Department of Defense doing to expedite the integration of UAS
into the National Airspace?
Do you recommend any changes in regulation, statute, or agreements between
the Defense Department and the FAA in order to expedite the processto meet
both safety and national defense needs?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 required that a
flexible personnel practice available to one defense laboratory under the Laboratory
Personnel Demonstration Project should be available for use at any other laboratory.
Can you tell us how many defense laboratories have taken advantage of this
provision?
How can the Department better implement this authority to improve the flexibility of personnel practices in Defense laboratories?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. Recent Department of Defense reports indicate an increase in sexual
assaults in the Armed Services and Military Academies. This increase highlights an
urgent need for improvements to the way Defense Department officials respond to
sexual assault cases. Below is a list of improvements that I feel are necessary to
safeguard against military sexual assault and protect its victims.
What is the Departments position on providing the following rights to victims
of sexual assault (please explain):
o Victim Access to Judge Advocate General (JAG) and privileged communication with a Victim Advocate.
o Professionalize and standardize sexual assault programs based on what we
have already learned from the success of Equal Employment Opportunity program at the DOD.
o Require a Sexual Assault training module at each level of Professional Military Education (PME).
o Provide a mechanism for expedited consideration and priority for base transfers.
o Provide a system of data collection on sexual assaults, reported assaults, and
for the ongoing quality of performance of victims after the assault.
o Giving a victim advocate more independence from the victims chain of command.
o Adopt measures that truly create separation between the victim and the alleged perpetrator at the base level, and not merely accept separation on
paper.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. As stated in the April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, President
Obama has directed a review of potential future reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons below New START levels.
Have you received such direction?
What conditions would the Department of Defense need to see met in order to
consider further reductions beyond New START levels?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. TURNER. When the White House announced the Phased Adaptive Approach
(PAA) to missile defense in Europe last September, it said the new approach was
based upon an assumption that the long-range missile threat was slower to de-

108
velop. However, in comments last month, you both expressed concern about the
pace of North Koreas ICBM and nuclear developments.
Do you have a similar assessment of Irans missile and nuclear programs?
Also, as discussed in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, what hedging strategy will you pursue to defend the U.S. homeland in case the threat comes earlier or the new Next Generation Aegis Missile has technical problems?
At what point would the Department make a decision to employ the hedge?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON
Mr. JOHNSON. Do you believe your successor should commit to following the recent
efficiency initiative with further efficiency drives to maintain momentum in cost-cutting and reform of the Department of Defense?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. Do you anticipate that any U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan
in 2017? If you do not explicitly answer in the affirmative, I will presume that the
Department of Defense plans and anticipates to remove all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 2017.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. I am aware you have outlined several criteria for reconciliation of
Taliban and anti-government forces in Afghanistan, including renunciation of al
Qaeda, acceptance of the Afghan national constitution, and renunciation of violence.
Can you provide detailed information regarding specific reconciliation outreach
efforts to Taliban fighters for each ISAF Regional Command?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. Can your end force strength goals for the middle of the next decade
be reconciled with your commitment to fairer dwell times for our men and women
in uniform?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. Do you assess that cancelling the F35 second engine program
would pose any operational risk in the event the primary engine were stricken by
unforeseen, widespread failures?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. When will DDG1000 hulls #2 and #3 be put under contract?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. Why will full ship shock trials of the Littoral Combat Ship not be
conducted on hulls #1 or #2, in light of persistent questions raised by the Department of Operational Testing & Evaluation regarding whether LCS meets its Level
1 Survivability requirements?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. General Spencer on January 14, 2011, stated the importance of securing the global commons as a defense priority of the U.S., signaling our continued commitment as the worlds primary defender of key trade routes.
How can we share this burden among our allies and emerging powers to spare
the U.S. taxpayer from footing the full bill for global security?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. JOHNSON. Is less than 200 F22s adequate to ensure U.S. air superiority for
the next three decades?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KLINE
Mr. KLINE. The United States Government has been operating from the same
NRO Charter for 46 years. I understand the Department intends to produce a Directive rather than a Charter as required. We began this process over 2 years ago. The
Charter was not delivered by the February 1, 2010 deadline. In last years Armed
Services Committee defense posture hearing (February 3, 2010), I asked you when
the Department intended to complete the Charter. I am concerned that it has been
more than a year, and a Charter has still not been delivered in accordance with legislative requirements. Our committee has received conflicting information from the
Department as to whether we will receive the Charter, a DOD Directive in place
of the Charter, or no additional product whatsoever because the MOA essentially
serves as the Charter. The law requires a Charter, not an MOA or Directive.
The FY10 NDAA required the Department of Defense and the DNI to submit
a revised NRO charter by Feb 1, 2010 to the Committee on Armed Services. It
is now 2011, where is the Charter?

109
If the Department intends to comply with the law, when will the actual Charter
be delivered to the Committee?
If the Department will issue a product other than the Charter, please provide
that intent in writing as well as details on when the Committee should expect
to receive such a product.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SUTTON
Ms. SUTTON. Id like to hear from you about funding levels for the DOD Office
of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and how the budget reflects the importance of this
issue. A key component of modernizing our infrastructure, preserving our military
assets, and saving money in the process is adopting a robust corrosion prevention
and mitigation strategy. It is not a glamorous topic, but its one that is worth our
time and attention, especially given the potential savings if we address it in a smart
and appropriate way.
Given the demonstrated successes of this corrosion office, how do you foresee
the proposed funding level supporting the future role of this office, and what
are the intentions for the evolution of this work within DOD in the future?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. SUTTON. The Navy estimates that executing the 30-year shipbuilding plan
would require an average of $15.9 billion per year, however a May 2010 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that figure to be an average of $19 billion per yearor about 18% more than the Navy estimates. The CBO report states
that if the Navy receives an average of about $15 billion a year in 2010 dollars in
the next 30 yearsit will not be able to afford all the purchases in the 2011 shipbuilding plan.
Given the proposals for minimal to no real budget growth in the upcoming
years, are you concerned with the Navys ability to reach its required force
structure? How will this affect the Navys shipbuilding plan?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. SUTTON. I believe that one of our priorities should be to consider how our decisions and policies impact the welfare of service members and their families. Reduced dwell time and stop loss are two situations that have caused much strain for
our military. One of the proposals is the reduction of the permanent end strength
of the Active Army and Marine Corps.
Do you anticipate that these cuts will reduce the amount of dwell time for our
soldiers or risk a return to the utilization of the stop-loss for our soldiers?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Ms. SUTTON. I believe that one of our priorities should be to consider how our decisions and policies impact the welfare of service members and their families. Reduced dwell time and stop loss are two situations that have caused much strain for
our military. One of the proposals is the reduction of the permanent end strength
of the Active Army and Marine Corps.
Do you anticipate that these cuts will reduce the amount of dwell time for our
soldiers or risk a return to the utilization of the stop-loss for our soldiers?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKS
Mr. FRANKS. When the Phased Adaptive Approach was first introduced, deadlines
for each phase were set under the impression that long-range missile threats were
slow to develop. Recently you made remarks that suggest North Koreas ICBM and
nuclear developments are proceeding faster than expected. This raises concerns that
the PAA will not be available to defend against long-range ICBMs before North
Korea develops this capability.
In the interim, there must be a hedging strategy. Please identify the hedging
strategy you will pursue to defend our Nations Homeland in the event that
North Korea or another rogue nation acquires ICBM capability earlier than expected or if the new Next Generation Aegis Missile has technical problems.
o Particularly, does the GMD two stage interceptor remain a realistic and flexible hedge against these advancing threats?
o Also, what is the timeline for a decision on this strategy?
Furthermore, do you have an assessment of other nations timeline of achieving
ICBM and nuclear capabilities able to threaten our homeland, particularly
Irans program.

110
o If not, what is being done to make an accurate assessment of their developments?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. FRANKS. Concerns about whether the New START Treaty limited missile defense figured prominently in the Senates debate on the Treaty. You both continue
to engage in missile defense discussions with your Russian counterparts.
Please describe the nature of those discussions and what you see as areas of
concern.
o Particularly, do you find the lack of agreement in the interpretation of the
preamble as having unforeseen consequences for a Missile Defense Capabilities?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. FRANKS. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system in Alaska and
California is currently the only missile defense system that protects the United
States homeland from long-range ballistic missile attacks. However, the last two
flight intercept tests of the GMD system failed to achieve intercept.
What actions and/or investments do you believe are necessary to ensure GMD
is a reliable and operationally effective system to protect the U.S. homeland
against evolving threats?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. FRANKS. Have you seen any changes among our allies in Europe or elsewhere
on their view of U.S. extended deterrence and the role the U.S. nuclear weapons
in providing that extended deterrence guarantee? If so, please discuss these
changes.
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. FRANKS. Concerns about whether the New START Treaty limited missile defense figured prominently in the Senates debate on the Treaty. You both continue
to engage in missile defense discussions with your Russian counterparts.
Please describe the nature of those discussions and what you see as areas of
concern.
o Particularly, do you find the lack of agreement in the interpretation of the
preamble as having unforeseen consequences for a Missile Defense Capabilities?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. FRANKS. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system in Alaska and
California is currently the only missile defense system that protects the United
States homeland from long-range ballistic missile attacks. However, the last two
flight intercept tests of the GMD system failed to achieve intercept.
What actions and/or investments do you believe are necessary to ensure GMD
is a reliable and operationally effective system to protect the U.S. homeland
against evolving threats?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. FRANKS. Have you seen any changes among our allies in Europe or elsewhere
on their view of U.S. extended deterrence and the role the U.S. nuclear weapons
in providing that extended deterrence guarantee? If so, please discuss these
changes.
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SHUSTER
Mr. SHUSTER. I applaud you for your decision not to proceed to procurement of
the MEADS missile defense system. As noted in the DOD memo, the program is
substantially over budget and behind schedule. It would take an additional $974M
just to complete the Design and Development of the program. It does not make
sense to continue to waste $800 hundred million on a system we are not going to
procure.
Will DOD go back to the drawing board and try to find a way to ring out some
additional savings out of this $800M for MEADS? Will you ask your team to
brief me on what this $800M is for, and if we can least find some more substantial savings?
The DOD memo indicates that it will be necessary to allocate funds for Patriot
upgrades. At a minimum, will DOD work to reallocate funds for Design and Development for upgrades to the Patriot system?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. SHUSTER. In the Memo accompanying your recent decision not to proceed to
procurement of MEADS, you specifically highlighted the Armys inability to afford
to procure MEADS and make required Patriot upgrades as rationale for the deci-

111
sion. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment and commend you on your decision. It is vital that we continue to upgrade the Patriot system, which can provide
added capability much sooner and at a fraction of the cost.
In light of your decision and the vital importance of air and missile defense;
can you please provide any insight on accelerating Patriot modernization?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. SHUSTER. Azerbaijan is an important partner of the United States and Israel
in the region. It has contributed troops and resources to our missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo; and the country is a key component of the Northern Distribution Network. Azerbaijan was first to open Caspian energy resources to U.S.
companies and has emerged as a key partner for diversifying European energy markets. Azerbaijan also cooperates closely with the United States in the areas of intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
and counternarcotics trafficking. The importance of Azerbaijan will only continue to
grow, particularly given rising tensions with Iran.
How would you describe the current level of military cooperation between the
United States and Azerbaijan, as well as your future expectations for that cooperation? What steps must the United States and Azerbaijan take to further
strengthen this relationship?
Section 907 of Freedom Support Act of 1992 limits the U.S. Governments ability to provide direct assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan. In what ways
does this interfere with the Department of Defenses long-term planning regarding Azerbaijan and its efforts to deepen bilateral relations with respect to security and defense matters?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CONAWAY
Mr. CONAWAY. Regarding the F35 alternate engine, both the Pentagons F35 acquisition strategy documents, one completed 10 years ago and an update completed
2 years ago noted:
to preclude excessive reliance on a single engine supplier, an alternate engine
program was established.
The F35 acquisition strategy document published in December 2008, nearly
three years after the Pentagon quit requesting funding for the F136 stated that:
dependent on F136 propulsion system maturity and funding availability . . .
the goal is to reach full competition between Pratt & Whitney and GE in FY12
or 13
In addition, the most recent business case analysis completed by the Department
of Defense indicated the competitive engine is at the breakeven point in net present
value.
Given the Departments acquisition strategy documents concerns on excessive
reliance on a single contractor to provide the F35 engine, the stated goal of
reaching full competition between the two manufacturers, and the business case
analysis stating it was no more expensive to have a competitive engine, why
are you so opposed to the alternate engine?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. CONAWAY. In January, you announced a significant reduction in the original
order for F35s for the FYDP. According to your statement, a reduction of 124 F
35s, bringing the total to 325, will pay for the $4.6 billion needed to extend the development period and adding additional flight tests. You further stated that an additional $4 billion from this reduction will be used for other purposes, such as acquiring more F/A18s, one of the planes the F35 is supposed to replace. Furthermore,
you have stated the impact of removing 124 F35 A & C variants from the FYDP
will have little impact to unit cost over the life of the program. I am concerned
about the impact to unit cost this reduction will have to the remaining A and C
variants throughout the FYDP.
Given the information about the progress of the Chinese stealth fighter aircraft
technology, what is the justification for cutting 124 fifth generation F35s and
buying 41 additional obsolete fourth generation aircraft?
Please comment on the immediate or near term cost impacts of the reduction?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. CONAWAY. In the recent restructuring of the F35 program, the F35B, was
put on a two year probation. It is my understanding that the technical issues on
this variant appear to be typical at this stage in a development program.
Would you remove the F35B variant from probation before the FY13 budget
submission if the aircrafts performance improves?

112
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. CONAWAY. The requirement for the ship to shore distance for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was 25 miles. Now, the Marine Corps and the Navy have
stated the requirement now is more like 12 to 25 miles.
Can you please elaborate for the committee what the new ship to shore requirement will be for a potential New Amphibious Vehicle?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
Mr. COFFMAN. What steps is the Department of Defense taking to eliminate our
militarys dependence on China for critical rare earth elements? How is the Department of Defense helping to reestablish a viable domestic supply chain?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. COFFMAN. The FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act required a report
that evaluates supply options, determines aggregate defense demand, and establishes a plan to address vulnerabilities in the area of rare earth elements. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Strategic Materials Stockpileformerly the national
stockpile centerhas a successful program that can easily include stockpiling critical rare earth metals and alloys.
What thought have you given to this?
Do you agree that the DLA office has a key role to play in the required report
and plan?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. COFFMAN. In November 2010, I was informed by senior Department of Defense officials that our reliance on China for rare earth oxides, metals, alloys, and
magnets did not constitute a national security threat. Officials from the Office of
Industrial Policy noted that the Department of Defense was a small user and that
they could not aggregate the Departments demand and usage of these materials.
If the Department of Defense uses 7% of total rare earth demand, as noted by
senior officials, arent you still concerned if you cannot access that 7%?
DoD representatives noted that new sources of supply for rare earth elements
will be coming online in late 2011 and 2012. Has the Office of Industrial Policy
taken note that the majority of this new supply is committed to non-U.S.
sources such as Japan, who may not provide this material to the U.S. defense
supply-chain, instead opting to supply the larger commercial market?
If so, how can you conclude there is no national security risk if you cannot guarantee access to the rare earth oxides, metals, alloys, and magnets needed by
the Department of Defense?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. COFFMAN. Given that we are engaged in two protracted wars, how would you
characterize the performance and practicality of the all-volunteer force?
Do you have any concerns regarding the future of the all-volunteer force?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GRIFFIN
Mr. GRIFFIN. Section 1243 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
for FY11 states: The Secretary of Defense shall develop a strategy to be known as
the National Military Strategy to Counter Iran. Among other requirements, the
NDAA mandates that this strategy undertake a review of the ability of the Department of Defense to counter threats to the United States, its forces, allies, and interests from Iran, and specifically requires the Secretary to brief Congress within 180
days of the NDAAs enactment regarding any resources, capabilities, or changes to
current law he believes are necessary to address any gave identified in the strategy.
Is the Joint Staff currently preparing this strategy, which will be a high priority
for this committee and receive as much or greater attention as any military report we receive?
Will we receive this report within the mandated 180 day?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. PALAZZO
Mr. PALAZZO. The Navy estimates that its average annual shipbuilding requirement is $15 billion per year to attain its minimum floor of 313 battle-force ships.

113
However the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Navy will require, on average, $19 billion per year to attain its minimum floor of 313 ships.
Given that there will be minimal to no real budget growth in the upcoming
years, are you concerned with the Navys ability to reach its required force
structure?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. PALAZZO. As you know, the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 requires that
all Federal Agencies perform a financial audit each year. The DOD has not complied
and even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has labeled the DODs books
as unauditable because of the complexity of this problem. Many people view this
as a complete lack of accountability and transparency in one of our Governments
largest agencies. Now colleagues of mine have even introduced legislation to cut portions of the DOD budget until the audits are complete.
Has there been any recent attempt to correct this problem, change the accounting systems or develop a course of action to get this problem fixed? Is it reasonable to expect a full audit in the foreseeable future?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. PALAZZO. The role of the US military in recent years has had an increased
focus on humanitarian response missions such as earthquake response in Haiti and
response to the Indonesian tsunami. These contingency efforts, particularly by the
Navy and Marine Corps due to their specific strengths and mobility, are changing
the role of the force.
Given these new requirements, what do you see as the future of the Navy and
Marine Corps?
Does this new focus on humanitarian missions weaken the force and our capability to respond to emerging threats such as China?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. PALAZZO. It is no secret that our National Guard has played an extremely important role in our military operations over the last decade, and as a national
guardsman, I believe in the importance of thanking my fellow citizen soldiers and
the families that make sacrifices every day to protect our great nation. In the past,
proposals have been introduced to add a representative of the National Guard to
the Joint Chiefs.
Do you believe that this is a feasible and logical addition?
How do you believe that adding a representative to the Joint Chiefs will affect
the service chiefs and the role of the National Guard?
Do you foresee any additional costs associated with this change?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. PALAZZO. The role of the US military in recent years has had an increased
focus on humanitarian response missions such as earthquake response in Haiti and
response to the Indonesian tsunami. These contingency efforts, particularly by the
Navy and Marine Corps due to their specific strengths and mobility, are changing
the role of the force.
Given these new requirements, what do you see as the future of the Navy and
Marine Corps?
Does this new focus on humanitarian missions weaken the force and our capability to respond to emerging threats such as China?
Admiral MULLEN. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Our budget constraints are significant. ADM Mullen has described
our debt as our nations greatest national security challenge.
Within this environment, President Obama has proposed an increase in our defense budgetalbeit a slight increaseover FY10 enacted levels. This comes on top
of a doubling of defense expenditures over the last 12 years, in real inflation-adjusted dollars.
Meanwhile, ADM Mullens comments indicated that we must face the reality of
less spending by our partners. Essentially, our allies are cutting spending and, one
might say, free-riding off of our military investments.
We, understandably, dont want to use our military to do more without more, or
even ask it to do more with less.
In light of our growing fiscal challenges and steady investments in defense, and
steady disinvestment in defense by our allies, how do you respond to those who
argue that our ambitions now outstrip our capacities to fund them at home and
abroad?

114
Aside from creating conditions for more robust economic growth, including reforming our nations entitlement programs, might we also address the gap between our ambitions and capacities by scaling back our global commitments
i.e., by setting priorities among missions rather than by layering additional missions on top of existing missions (as we have done in recent history)?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Regarding the alternate engine of the F35, the Joint Strike Fighter
(JSF), how do you refute the findings of the GAO study (GAO09711T, May 20,
2009) that savings generated from having a competitive engine would recoup or exceed investment costs across the life cycle of the engine, and that its non-financial
benefits were enough to continue the program, even if considering only marginal financial benefits?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
Mr. YOUNG. Considering that 95 percent of our fighter force is projected to be
comprised of F35s within the next 25 years, how do you answer to concerns that
our operational capabilities could be drastically compromised, as we would have
very little redundancy in our fighter force, as we would be dependent upon one engine and vulnerable to a fleet-wide grounding?
Secretary GATES. [The information was not available at the time of printing.]